Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns. — 180 Proof

OK. What is mathematics made of? Is it a collection of discrete (quantum particles), or universal fluid substance of some kind? Or is mathematics a human construct of imagination to represent the invisible relationships in nature? Do you think a dog would see a geometric triangle in an array of three unconnected dots? If the dog "sees" invisible lines between things, he may have a rudimentary grasp of geometry.

The distinction I was making is between the actual dots (objects) and the imaginary links (subjective). The white triangle illusion in the post above is an illustration of how human minds (dog minds??) fill-in the absences between things. Mathematical relationships (ratios) are imaginary (figurative, metaphorical) connections, not real (physical, material) bridges between objects. A mathematical "structure" (geometry) is not synonymous with a physical structure (steel beams) :cool:

"When an image is incomplete, your brain fills in the gaps by figuring out the most likely interpretation."
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/brain/optical-illusions-and-how-they-work/filling-in

The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing. — Gnomon

In the absence of a definite foundation of reality, we are constrained to conceptualize the foundation in a workable manner. A field symbolizes reality according to quantum field theory. If we are to discuss matters at this level we have to agree on a theoretical basis, we can use quantum field theory, string theory, or wave theory. Which would you like? It will be metaphorical regardless.

You are using an idealist argument - I love it! :razz:

Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium? :chin: — Gnomon

Information is sensed by us as energetic frequency and vibration ( sight and sound ), particles ( smell, taste ), and force fields ( matter ). And bodily perturbations.

In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile: — Gnomon

I thought I did explain. But I forgot you are a dualist, so it wouldn't make much of an impression on you, I'm sure.

For a dualist, information exists as patterns of energy / matter everywhere else except in mind! :chin:

If there were no observers there would be no observations of white triangles; that seems obvious and I see no reason to assert any more than that. — Janus

That's not what I asked. In a universe of no minds, would there be any white triangles? Not "observations of white triangles". Just "white triangles".

If there were white triangles and you could remove all observers then there would be still be (unobserved) white triangles. How could it be otherwise if there were in the first place white triangles to be observed, and not they, but only the observers, were removed? Do you really believe that if you made a white triangle and put it in a room where no one could see it, that it would therefore disappear?

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope — Gnomon

Independent of any observer, the physical world is logical. For example, i) rocks exist - ii) a particular rock is a rock - iii) therefore, a particular rock exists.

When we observe the physical world, we observe that the physical world is logical. Therefore, the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation.

"Is logic empirical ?" is asking whether there a logic in the physical world that can be verified by observation.

Therefore, as the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation, "logic is empirical".

I'd say it is more the capacity for pattern recognition that makes us see the triangles than it is reason. — Janus

Agreed, in principle, but I don’t think pattern recognition is enough; we still have to do something with the patterns over and above recognizing them.

You are using an idealist argument - I love it! :razz: — Pop

Yes. But I also use Realist arguments where appropriate. However, it's the Idealist notions that tend to inflame some posters on this forum. I coined a term to describe my BothAnd philosophy : I'm a Redealist. I don't have to deny physical Reality in order to "see" meta-physical Ideality, the invisible world of interrelationships, that we know as Ideas or Meaning. Depending on what you are looking for, you will see and experience either the immaterial ideal world of Relationships. Or you can see the real world of Objects. It's a matter of perspective, as in Einstein's principle of Relativity. But some people seem to be blind (intentionally ?) to the reality of Relationships. And that is the whole point of Carlo Rovelli's latest book, HELGOLAND. The traditional belief of Science was that scientists can stand outside the Real world, and see it as it really is. But Kant shot-down that notion, long before Quantum Theory undermined the material foundation of Reality. Rovelli says, "the external point of view is a point of view that does not exist".

Rovelli goes on to say, while discussing the meaning of Information, that "this condition [subjectivity], which is perhaps a problem for naive materialism, is beautifully satisfied if we rethink matter as interaction and correlations". [my bracket] In my experience, the primary argument against Ideal concepts is based on the authoritative belief system (dogma) of Naive Materialism. That prejudice is understandable though, because we are all materialists, when we tend to the needs of the body. But the tip of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is "Self-Actualization", which has nothing to do with the physical body, but focuses on the meta-physical Self, which is merely an idea in the mind. Naive Materialism tends to view the mental aspects of the world as merely various functions of Matter.

My "Idealist" perspective turns that primacy around, to view Matter as merely one form of meta-physical Information. Rovelli emphasizes that Real/Ideal distinction by listing some of the obviously immaterial forms of mentality : "The mental world has different aspects --- meaning, intentionality, values, objectives, ends, emotions, aesthetic and moral senses, mathematical intuition, perception, creativity, consciousness . . . ." When Plato imagined a separate realm of Ideal Forms, those immaterial qualities are what he had in mind. Of course, that ideal realm is not really separate, just metaphorically on a different plane, so to speak. And it's metaphorical language, comparing ideal concepts with real objects, that annoy Naive Materialists. They will, of course, deny that label. But, you can label me a Redealist. :cool:

Naive Materialism :
According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects ... ___Wiki

Ideality :
* In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (metaphorically equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I thought I did explain. But I forgot you are a dualist, so it wouldn't make much of an impression on you, I'm sure.
For a dualist, information exists as patterns of energy / matter everywhere else except in mind! — Pop

If you explained the meaning of "information integrates itself", I missed it. Would you run it by me again?

Actually, I am both a Dualist and a Monist, just as I am both a Realist and an Idealist. That's how I unify a universe of many parts into a single whole system. But I don't understand how Holism could explain how a bit or byte of Information could "integrate itself". That seems to attribute some self-control to abstract Information/Energy -- as-if a bit of information is a self-conscious entity. I sometimes describe EnFormAction, metaphorically, as-if it works like the Holy Spirit of God, "moving on the face of the waters". But, it's not intended to be taken literally or physically or religiously.

As a world system, Information (EnFormAction) is already integrated, but when Generic Information takes on the form of Matter or Energy, it necessarily dis-integrates. Maybe what you meant to say was that Information is inherently unified in its holistic form. But the Integrated Information Theory, postulates that the real entities, that we perceive around us, must somehow become re-integrated. I'm not sure how the mathematical manipulations would actually achieve that goal. But we do it instinctively all the time when we change our perspective from subjective to objective, and vice-versa. So, information is constantly changing form, from holistic Potential, to particular Actual, and back again. In the human brain/mind, information is converted from neuro-chemical processes into the idea processing that we call "thinking". But the information doesn't re-integrate itself, because it requires intention on the part of the thinker. Anyway, this seems to be minor semantic distinction for me. But, I could be missing something important. :joke:


EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.\
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS__I do see signs of Intentionality in the process of Thermodynamics and Evolution. And I propose a hypothetical deity to provide the teleological direction to the system as a whole. But taken literally, that could imply hard determinism. So, my metaphorical deity is assumed to give the world a push in a particular direction, then leave it alone to find its own path through almost infinite possibilities to a destination that is determined only in outline. Sadly, all of that hypothetical nonsense sounds like mere philosophical quibbling. So, I don't make a religion of it. :cool:

"the external point of view is a point of view that does not exist". — Gnomon

:up:

But, you can label me a Redealist. :cool: — Gnomon

Fair enough. Your understanding seems to have evolved since last we spoke, and so has mine.

If you explained the meaning of "information integrates itself", I missed it. Would you run it by me again? — Gnomon

Information always exists over a substrate. It is the perturbations of a substrate that create information.
Hence fundamentally we get - Enformation - energy and its information ( perturbations). The finest grain of energy is a wavicle, it is energy that contains information of its frequency and amplitude, charge, polarity, etc. When it interacts with another wavicle its frequency and amplitude, etc ( its information ) modulates to a third Wavicle. The information of the first and second Wavicle is integrated ( and memorized ) to the form of the third Wavicle. Information has been integrated and memorized in the structure of the resultant third Wavicle. This sketch contains all the necessary elements of consciousness: Information has been integrated and memorized, and a self has evolved interrelationally, the self being the totality of information contained by the wavicle.

As I apply this model to neuroplasticity, it seems to fit. It is the most fundamental relationship possible, using the most fundamental elements, so it is the building block of everything subsequent to it - it is the basis of everything, so is contained in everything. It shows how consciousness as information integration, and self organization is fundamental. Note, the information integrates on its own long before "mind" has evolved. I would be interested in counter arguments?

That the information integrates is due to the fine tuning of the universe (EnFormAction) . Its laws combined, cause self organization - a state of information integration that is equal to what we understand as consciousness. If a big bang is a disintegration, the opposite of a big bang will be integration. So, following a big bang period ( disintegration period ), one would expect an integration period .

Therefore, as the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation, "logic is empirical". — RussellA

OK. But it's the physics that's empirical, not the logical inferences. Logic is not a physical object, it's a mental process of making meaningful connections between otherwise meaningless events. The distinction is between the physical event and the metaphysical observation. People tend to see only the object in front of them, and ignore the seer (with knowledge and prejudices) behind their eyes. Simply seeing the obvious is not scientific observation. Classical Physics allowed scientists to ignore the observing mind. But, Quantum Theory requires scientists to include the Observer in the observation. :smile:

Fair enough. Your understanding seems to have evolved since last we spoke, and so has mine. — Pop

My philosophical understanding has been rapidly evolving since the core concept of the Enformationism Thesis occurred to me about 12 years ago. I continue to develop that kernel in my blog, and on this forum. Having my solipsistic ideas challenged is key to making philosophical progress in the complex world beyond the Self. :smile:

The information of the first and second Wavicle is integrated ( and memorized ) to the form of the third Wavicle. — Pop

Unfortunately, that assertion seems to be based on assumptions that I am not privy to. I can vaguely imagine that each wave-front is altered (form changed) by its interaction with another wave. Thereby retaining a "memory" of the event, long after it happened. Is that even close to your understanding of wavicle "memory"? :chin:

consciousness as information integration — Pop

I interpret that assertion as saying that Consciousness is a process of "connecting the dots", or categorizing independent external factors into holistic meaning, to the observer. :nerd:

If a big bang is a disintegration, the opposite of a big bang will be integration. So, following a big bang period ( disintegration period ), one would expect an integration period . — Pop

That sounds like what Teilhard deChardin called the Omega Point. I just started reading the 1987 book by astronomer John Barrow and mathematical physicist Frank Tipler : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Both of those "visionary" scientists reached somewhat religious or mystical conclusions about the destiny of the universe. But they are usually ridiculed by scientists and philosophers who still hold the Copernican Principle dear. :cool:


The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.

Copernican Principle :
In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.
Note -- this is usually interpreted to mean that the universe is not Anthropic -- that there is nothing special about humanity, and the universe is not teleological.

I don't think we are on the same page. Ill try once more:

1 Information and energy are fundamental

2. If information and energy are fundamental, then everything is made of information and energy.

3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness.

Assuming information and energy is fundamental, then the most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and amplitude symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. The third wavicle is a symbol of the interaction of the two first wavicles. The information of the first two wavicles has been integrated and symbolized ( memorized as a symbol ) in the form of the third wavicle.

Information has been integrated to a symbol.

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol.

Consciousness integrates specifically this sort of information – information in the form of energetic frequency and vibration. Frequency and vibration in the form of light and sound hits the edge of a self. The self itself is fundamentally frequency and vibration, so two wavicles of sorts interact and modulate. The sensed frequency and vibrations are symbolized - pattern recognition style, where each pattern has its own symbol. The symbols are related and a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.

The fundamental wavicle interaction has the quality of consciousness – it integrates information to a symbol – there is no need for a consciousness to emerge, the information integrating function is already present. In time, It just evolves in complexity, by integrating more and more information.

Traditionally it is understood that mind is the facility that integrates information, but it may be more accurate to state that mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information. Neuroplasticity would support this view in that new brain structure is built to accommodate new thinking (new information). In neuroplasticity, new information takes the lead role, which brain structure tries to subsequently accommodate. New thinking entails new neuronal connections / brain structure.

This leads to a view that information self organizes in mind, just as it does everywhere else.
Any thoughts?

Logic is not a physical object — Gnomon

Logic as a study of valid rules of inference
Logic is the systematic study of valid rules of inference, in that there are particular relations that lead to the acceptance of one proposition (conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises).

For example, taking the modus ponens as an example, the rational rule of inference "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y happens" is valid because the empirical rule of inference i) "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y doesn't happen" is never observed.

As the validity of the rational rule of inference is determined by a correspondence with an empirical rule of inference, rules of inference must empirically exist in the world.

Logic as a relationship of an object
Whether logical truths entail the existence of any entities, or whether logical truth is independent of what exists is debated.

If logical truths hold no matter what the representation is about, then they hold in any domain, including empty domains. And if that is true, then logical truths cannot imply that anything exists.

But, on the other hand, if logical truths hold in any domain, then any domain has to contain the logical objects. Thus for logical objects there can be no empty domain.

Logic is not neutral with respect to what exists, and logic is not independent of what exists. Logic is not an object but a relationship of the object. If logic is a relationship of an object, then logic cannot exist outside the existence of objects.

For example, the following logical truths would not exist in a domain empty of objects:
i) If object A is larger than object B, object B is smaller than object A
ii) If object A exists, then it is not the case that object A doesn't exist.
iii) If object A is to the left of object B, then object B is to the right of object A.
iv) If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A.
v) Object A is the same as object A
vi) etc

IE, "logic" can mean either the study of the valid rules of inference, which exist empirically, or a relationship of objects, which also exist empirically.
As with mathematics, logic is an invention that corresponds with what has been discovered

3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness. — Pop

My understanding may be a little different, in that I would say that every thing and every process in the world is a form of Generic EnFormAction (the power to cause change of form). One form is Matter. which is what we know as physical Objects. Energy is another form, but it's a process of change, not a static object. And Consciousness is also not a stable thing, but an ongoing process of interpreting incoming Information (energy) into Subjective Meaning. So, consciousness is more like Energy than Matter. But it's hard to say what an ongoing process is "made of". You could say that C consists of a stream of Ideas or symbols or meanings. But that's a metaphor analogous to flowing water, which is actually made-of both Matter (H20), and energy (momentum). Maybe C is like a water-wheel mill that uses flowing energy to convert raw material (grain) into edible (meaningful) flour. :joke:

This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and amplitude symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. — Pop

I think I vaguely grasp what you're saying. But to me, "symbolize" is a metaphor for what goes-on in a conscious mind, not in abstract space. Are you implying that the wavicle "memory" and "symbols" are in G*D's mind?

A symbol is a subjective idea (metaphor, analogy) that represents an external object or someone else's idea. For example, the NAZI swastika originally symbolized divinity & spirituality, or just good luck. But it was adopted by the NAZIs to symbolize the dynamic "spirit" of the German folk. So, like beauty, a symbol is in the conscious mind's eye of the beholder. :heart:

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol. — Pop

Yes. C converts objective coded energy (out there) into subjective Meaning-to-Self (in here). In its coded form, the energy is meaningless. So, I guess you mean by "integrates", that C "interprets" patterns into meanings or symbols. :chin:

mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information. — Pop

Yes but, I would interpret "self-organization" as an action that is automatic, and inherent in the coded information, and requires no interpretation by the recipient. Something like a self-extracting ZIP file. But for me, it takes two to "integrate" or interpret many possible meanings into a singular relevance to the recipient's Self. So, I would say that incoming information (usually in the form of energy) is meaningless and non-symbolic, until it is process in a prepared mind with the code-key (reason) to extracting the potential information. Of course, the meaning of the incoming data was known to the sender (G*D??), but not to the receiver, until the mind "faciitates" the decoding process with a "code key" (Logic) that is known to both parties in the communication. :nerd:

Energy is another form, but it's a process of change, not a static object. — Gnomon

Mass is energy, and that's generally considered a material property.

A symbol is a subjective idea (metaphor, analogy) that represents an external object or someone else's idea. — Gnomon

Surely not! The meaning of the symbol depends on the system that interprets it, be it a mind or a computer. But the symbol itself is a physically encoded, abstract configuration. This sentence is full of symbols physically encoded in memory and in signals.

Unless you are thinking of the redundancy of symbol types over tokens, in which case, yes, these are categories and therefore somewhat subjective.

But even then, it clearly doesn't represent anything intrinsically. Identical symbols in two languages represent different things, for instance.

I think I vaguely grasp what you're saying. But to me, "symbolize" is a metaphor for what goes-on in a conscious mind, not in abstract space. Are you implying that the wavicle "memory" and "symbols" are in G*D's mind? — Gnomon

So, I guess you mean by "integrates", that C "interprets" patterns into meanings or symbols. :chin: — Gnomon

Yes that is what I mean. In human consciousness, frequencies and vibrations are translated to anthropocentric symbols, such as colour and sound. A symbol needs only to represent something - there are no other rules. The symbiology is understood intrinsically by a mind as representing something.

In the case of the wavicles, Information of the two wavicles is integrated to the resultant wavicle. The resultant wavicle in its structure memorizes and symbolizes their interaction. This is what Human consciousness does - it senses frequencies and vibrations ( wavicles ) as sight and sound and symbolizes and memorizes them structurally ( neuroplasticity ).. Hopefully you can see that this wavicular interaction is similar to, and perhaps is still, the foundation of consciousness? If so, then you might see how information is self organizing.

Is this due to G*D? I understand it as the laws of the universe ( including the ones we haven't discovered yet ) combining to cause Self organization, in an intrinsic way - Teleology, no externals necessary.

mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information.
— Pop
Yes but, I would interpret "self-organization" as an action that is automatic, and inherent in the coded information, and requires no interpretation by the recipient. : — Gnomon

It depends on where the teleology resides. The teleology may reside in every "Self", where everything is an evolving "self" organizing system. Or the teleology is something that just exists everywhere, and then your interpretation would be valid - but there would be no need for consciousness, as everything is externally caused. But if everything is caused to self organize, then an intrinsic consciousness is necessary, in order to intrinsically navigate the information, and form an intrinsic "self" in the process. :cool: Which do you think it is? :smile:

Of course, the meaning of the incoming data was known to the sender (G*D??), but not to the receiver, until the mind "faciitates" the decoding process with a "code key" (Logic) that is known to both parties in the communication. :nerd: — Gnomon

Where does logic come from? In logic, can we put the information together as we would like to, or are we constrained to put it together the way that it fits - like a jigsaw puzzle?

Consciousness, of course, is not logical. It only needs to be functional, and this is another fascinating aspect of it, in that there is so much room for fantasy. And this fantastic aspect of it would seem to be beneficial for survival, perhaps crucial for survival.

But, on the other hand, if logical truths hold in any domain, then any domain has to contain the logical objects. Thus for logical objects there can be no empty domain. — RussellA

I am in general agreement with your assessment of Logic. But the quoted statement reminded me of the weird notion of Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles. The field itself is defined mathematically (logically) as a grid or matrix of dimensionless points (i.e. no extension, no measurable contents). And the Virtual Particles that theoretically occupy those points can be described as Potential-not-actual particles. Therefore, as a "logical object", a Virtual Particle seems to be an Empty Domain that could potentially be filled with substance.

Of course, most physicists prefer the positive-sounding term "virtual" to the negative implications of "not actual". In any case, the theoretical mathematicians don't really care that those "point" domains are mostly empty, until randomly-and-without-provocation, those vacant domains are filled with measurable particles of matter. It's only in an averaged statistical sense that the field is real. So, it seems that the human mind can "see" logical relationships between imaginary "objects". In that case, Virtual Particles could be described, philosophically, as Metaphysical instead of Physical. But that's a no-no in Physics. :smile:

Do Virtual Particles Really Exist? :
The effects of the quantum vacuum are real; the virtual particle visualization is useful, but the particles themselves are not real.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/

Virtual reality (VR)is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.

Mass is energy, and that's generally considered a material property. — Kenosha Kid

Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. I like to think of Matter as a condensed form of slowed-down Energy. For example, as the frequency of light energy slows down, it's vibrations are less energetic. So at some point, light energy is transformed, as-if by magic, into a sluggish material form. That's how plants make potential-energy-rich, but low-frequency, sugar molecules from sunlight. Technically, Mass per se is not Energy. But it is mathematically equal to the frequency of the energy multiplied by the speed of propagation of light (E=MC^2). :smile:

mass–energy equivalence :
the energy E is measured in Joules, the mass m is measured in kilograms, and the speed of light is measured in meters per second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

Is this due to G*D? I understand it as the laws of the universe ( including the ones we haven't discovered yet ) combining to cause Self organization, in an intrinsic way - Teleology, no externals necessary. — Pop

I think your "law of the universe" may be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. I didn't define it in terms of Self-Organization, but I suppose that's one way to look at it. Since the hypothetical Enformer is out of the picture, physical changes appear to be self-caused. That may be what Sheldrake had in mind for his notion of Morphic Resonance. But, I remain skeptical about his inference that "paranormal" events, such as mental telepathy are attributable to the Morphic Field. :smile:

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Morphic Resonance :
Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

But if everything is caused to self organize, then an intrinsic consciousness is necessary, in order to intrinsically navigate the information, and form an intrinsic "self" in the process. :cool: Which do you think it is? :smile: — Pop

I think the automatically evolving (self-organizing) processes of Nature imply that Organized Intention, rather than Disorderly Randomness, is at work. That's why I describe Evolution as functioning like a computer program, which seems intent on reaching some ultimate solution to an open question -- hopefully, the answer will be more enlightening than "42". But the original teleological Intention was in the mind of the postulated Programmer, and was eventually expressed in the emergence of creatures capable of their own self-control (cybernetics) and self-directed Intentions.

However, I refrain from applying the notion of self-consciousness to the lifeless & mindless elements (particles) of Physics. Instead, the "intrinsic consciousness" was in the Enformer, who achieves He/r goals by means of EnFormAction (a combination of causal Energy and cybernetic Information). Hence, Nature is a goal-directed cybernetic organism (a holistic system), imbued with self-directed consciousness by its Intentional Designer. But, I have to be careful not to say such outrageous things out-loud on this forum. :cool:

Principia Cybernetica :
Philosophies traditionally start with an ontology or metaphysics: a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality. In a traditional systemic philosophy, "organization" might be seen as the fundamental principle of being, rather than God, matter, or the laws of nature. However this still begs the question of where this organization comes from. In a constructive systemic philosophy, on the other hand, the essence is the process through which this organization is created.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHI.html
Note -- but who or what organized the process of Evolution???

However, I refrain from applying the notion of self-consciousness to the lifeless & mindless elements (particles) of Physics. Instead, the "intrinsic consciousness" was in the Enformer, who achieves He/r goals by means of EnFormAction (a combination of causal Energy and cybernetic Information). Hence, Nature is a goal-directed cybernetic organism (a holistic system), imbued with self-directed consciousness by its Intentional Designer. — Gnomon

If you had a definition of consciousness then you may be able to make a coherent case for such a proposition, by examining whether the definition "only" fits humanity.

I have a definition of consciousness that fits humanity very well - "information integration for the purpose of self organization". As I analyze this definition, I find it fits everything. As I apply it to a conceptual fundamental substance ( wavicle ), I find all the essential elements of human consciousness present. And I find this fundamental mechanism of converting wave information to a structural symbology is still present in human consciousness ( neuroplasticity ). Being the fundamental interaction, it would be the basis of everything, and so present in everything, including human consciousness.

as a "logical object", a Virtual Particle seems to be an Empty Domain — Gnomon

There seem to be many measurable physical effects that seem to point to the existence of virtual particles, but "virtual particles" are not the only possible explanation of these measurable effects.

Possibility one - the idea of a dimensionless point particle may simply be a way to explain why interactions are localised at dimensionless points, in that there are not particles but fields, and it these fields that interact at these dimensionless points.

A dimensionless particle is a problematic thing if one wants to give it properties such as mass or charge, in that the mass and charge of a particle will then have to be infinite. The same problem as a singularity at the centre of a black hole, where the laws of physics cease to exist as we know them.

Possibility two - one must distinguish between the mathematical formulation of a quantum field and how the quantum field is interpreted. A "virtual particle" may be a mathematical formulation but only a metaphorical interpretation. Such as Schrödinger's cat, The Uncertainty Principle, Evolution by natural selection, Black Holes, The Butterfly Effect, etc.

IE, the true nature of a "virtual particle" is unknown

the human mind can "see" logical relationships between imaginary "objects" — Gnomon

"See" may be used two ways.

i) The human mind can empirically observe using scientific instruments measurable physical effects of "virtual particles", but cannot directly observe the "virtual particles" themselves, regardless of what a "virtual particle" is.
ii) The human mind can imagine the cause of these measurable physical effects as metaphorical "virtual particles"

IE, the human mind can imagine the relationship between imaginary objects, but cannot observe the relationship between imaginary objects.

In conclusion, as the true nature of "virtual particles" is unknown, one cannot argue that that this is an example where an object may exist in a empty domain

If Logic was empirical — Gnomon

I would argue that logic is empirical, as logic cannot exist in an empty domain.

Reason one - the human mind is incapable of thinking about logic in an empty domain

The human mind cannot imagine a logical truth independent of something represented by the logical truth, regardless of whether one assumes Idealism or Realism.

For example, the human mind can only imagine the logical truth - If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A - by representing objects A and B.

IE, the human mind is only able to think about logic through empirical observation of objects about which logical truth may be applied.

Reason two - logic corresponds to the world

There is no instance where a logical truth doesn't correspond with the world.

For example, is has never been observed that object A is not the the same as object A.

Possibility one is that the fact that logic as a study of valid rules of inference corresponds with logic discovered in the world is coincidence.
Possibility two is that the logic invented in the rational mind and the logic empirically discovered in the outside world are two aspects of a common logic existent in nature.

IE, ignoring coincidence as an answer, logic is empirical because logic is an intrinsic part of nature.

If you had a definition of consciousness then you may be able to make a coherent case for such a proposition, by examining whether the definition "only" fits humanity.

I have a definition of consciousness that fits humanity very well - "information integration for the purpose of self organization". — Pop

Yes. Your definition is broad enough to include almost anything that "processes" information, including a rock that absorbs radiant light energy, which it then "integrates" into its structure as thermal heat energy, which it then radiates back into the environment. Since I define Energy as a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction), the rock is "aware" of that incoming data only briefly. Whether that constitutes self-organization though is debatable. The rock may be changed by that interaction (thermal expansion), but the effects of such a minor change in structure might take eons to make a discernible difference. So I would reserve the term "information integration" for a more dramatic change, such as what happens when an animal "integrates" food into its structure and metabolism. That subliminal integration is essential for self-organization, but is it sufficient for meaningful Consciousness?

A dictionary definition of Consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." But it's hard enough to detect minimal consciousness in a comatose human, let alone a stone. Christof Koch laments the lack of a "consciousness meter" for that purpose. And elementary particles are even more remote from our concept of "awake" and "aware" than a rock. So, I prefer a narrower application of the term., that is more meaningful to the human mind, and to the human perspective. I'm not really concerned with what an atom thinks or feels, as it is dis-integrated in an atom smasher. However, I am interested in the advanced form of Information, that can be described as "Self-consciousness" --- knowing that you know. :grin:

Christof Koch -- What is Consciousness :
Consciousness is everything you experience. It is the tune stuck in your head, the sweetness of chocolate mousse, the throbbing pain of a toothache, the fierce love for your child and the bitter knowledge that eventually all feelings will end.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
Note -- he sounds like a homo sapiens chauvinist.

Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. — Gnomon

I think the distinction you're after is potential energy, which it has by virtue of its position in spacetime, and its mechanical energy, such as momentum and spin.

There seem to be many measurable physical effects that seem to point to the existence of virtual particles, but "virtual particles" are not the only possible explanation of these measurable effects. — RussellA

Yes. Like Dark Matter, Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations. And I don't doubt that they are useful constructs for the purposes of science. But I'm also aware that ancient people imagined invisible human-like agents to explain the otherwise inexplicable manifestations of invisible energy. For example, lightening reminded them of spears from heaven, so they assumed that someone was throwing them at specific targets, such as humans who offended the gods.

That general theory of disembodied Spirits was useful to pre-scientific thinkers for thousands of years. But we no longer need to imagine those natural effects as caused by human-like intentions, because Nature seems to be operating on auto-pilot. Hopefully, the need for ghostly objects will also no longer be necessary for future science. My money is on the causal (energy) and substantial (matter) effects of Generic Information (EnFormAction) in the natural world :nerd:

Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations. — Gnomon

Or predict future empirical observations, such as the decay chains of the Higgs boson involving W bosons (which are virtual particles).

Your definition is broad enough to include almost anything that "processes" information — Gnomon

- anything that integrates information. - which is everything, in the process of creating a self. This is the main game in a self organizing universe.

but is it sufficient for meaningful Consciousness? — Gnomon

It is the beginning of of what evolves into human consciousness. Our universe is an information integrating universe. Consciousness evolves with this fact as its basis ( strong anthropic principle ). It would mean that what integrates the information in organic consciousness is something that also exists outside the system, integrating information everywhere.

So, I prefer a narrower application of the term., that is more meaningful to the human mind, and to the human perspective. I'm not really concerned with what an atom thinks or feels, as it is dis-integrated in an atom smasher. However, I am interested in the advanced form of Information, that can be described as "Self-consciousness" --- knowing that you know. :grin: — Gnomon

I am also interested in knowing why I know, so I try to understand its origins, and evolution within the big picture, in the broadest possible way.

Note -- he sounds like a homo sapiens chauvinist. — Gnomon

He is a panpsychic: "Koch has come around to the view that all forms of life — from apes, dogs and dolphins all the way down to microbes — possess a modicum of consciousness.This concept, known as panpsychism, has transformed Koch’s life. “I’ve turned into a complete vegetarian,” he said. “That is one of the implications [of the view] that consciousness is more widespread than we assume.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/dogs-conscious-computers-brain-scientist-christof-koch-takes-deep-questions/

Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations — Gnomon

I agree that metaphor is a critical part of understanding.

My money is on the causal (energy) and substantial (matter) effects of Generic Information (EnFormAction) in the natural world — Gnomon

I can imagine the metaphor of the path of a particular rock in an avalanche.

I see neither intentionality nor teleology, as the rock has insufficient information as to where it will land up at the moment the avalanche is initiated.
The chances of the rock landing on one pre-determined spot is one in billions, however, the chance of the rock landing somewhere is one in one.
As the rock moves along its path through time and space, interactions between forces and particles, energy and matter, are not random but determined by the laws of nature.
During its path, any change in position of the rock is caused by the instantaneous interaction of energy and matter.
As the rock changes position, the information within the avalanche that the rock is a part of changes.
The final position of the rock is not pre-determined by either its start position or its final position but is determined by the integration of the set of particular situations it passes through along its path.
Given the same initial conditions and the same conditions along its path, there is not an infinite number of possible destinations but only one possible destination.

I perhaps understand that EnFormAction is about energy acting on a form causing an action.

But as regards Information Integration, the rock has to end up somewhere. In a sense its final resting position cannot be said to be due to "disorderly randomness", as its final resting position has been "organised" by the deterministic laws of nature. However, I don't understand the mechanism for teleological "intention".

I would argue that logic is empirical, as logic cannot exist in an empty domain.
There is no instance where a logical truth doesn't correspond with the world
]IE, ignoring coincidence as an answer, logic is empirical because logic is an intrinsic part of nature. — RussellA

I agree with last two assertions. But I think you are using the term "empirical" to mean "real", rather than "verifiable" or "testable". In definitions, "empirical" is usually contrasted with "theoretical" or "logical". Logic is indeed an inherent (real) aspect of Nature. But it is associated with metaphysical relationships, rather than with physical, empirically verifiable, objects. So Logic is more like a mental Theory about Reality, than a material Thing in the real world. :smile:

Empirical : based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic ___Oxford Dictionary