Try Prion. Mitochondria, white blood cells. Think proteins inside a cell, if you are going to be so obstinate. — Pop

It isn’t obstinate to understand the distinction between dissipative structure that is physical and dissipative structure that comes with added biological information.

One is just rate dependent dynamics. The other is rate-independent information added to the mix.

A whirlwind can’t repair itself and so it falls apart. Life can not only repair itself, it can seek out the zones of instability which can propel its own existence. It expects to have to repair itself continuously because it handles hot stuff.

I'm assuming monism, where information has it's neural correlates. So information causes a physical change ( in brain structure ), and this physical change embeds and orients an entity to its environment. — Pop

By assuming you mean conflating. A correlation isn’t a cause. And no one is delivering on the neural correlates anyway. That was only ever a panpsychic tactic mounted by Chalmers, Koch, and the like. I was there at the conference at which their manifesto was launched. I had lunch with them to discuss it.

A whirlwind can’t repair itself and so it falls apart — apokrisis

A whirlwind, created by a larger biologic system that is distinct from itself, can however strengthen and prolong it, and in theory, allow it to exist indefinitely. See Jupiter's Great Red Spot that has been "repairing" itself for at least 400 years and for all we humans would know millennia if not much longer. What do you say to that.

Furthermore, what is life for that matter. That which is alive, moves or otherwise interacts with the environment in a matter that consumes that which allows it to continue to exist, breathes, etc? Bacteria is intelligent. We didn't know that let alone it even existed until recently. Ignorance does not define what is fact or fiction. Unless you let it.

I see. Your point is the boundary between syntax and semantics is fuzzy with the former having some kind of effect on the latter e.g. take the two sentences, M = The man ate the dog and D = The dog ate the man. M and D have different meanings because of syntax - the order of the words, a grammatical feature, changed the semantics.

If I catch your drift, you mean to say that a theory of information must include syntactical elements such as the one described above. Right?

A whirlwind, created by a larger biologic system that is distinct from itself, can however strengthen and prolong it, and in theory, allow it to exist indefinitely. See Jupiter's Great Red Spot that has been "repairing" itself for at least 400 years — Outlander

Err, what biological system is maintaining the Great Red Spot.

Haha I was thinking of correcting that. Replace that with the most counter-productive word to your argument or just omit it entirely. Do not ignore the rest of my very logical post please!

Your point is the boundary between syntax and semantics is fuzzy with the former having some kind of effect on the latter e.g. take the two sentences, M = The man ate the dog and D = The dog ate the man. M and D have different meanings because of syntax - the order of the words, a grammatical feature, changed the semantics. — TheMadFool

Yes. The load of conveying meaning is shared by a machinery that places constraints on uncertainty. And so this devolves into the familiar things of words and rules. A word is a unit - some noise uttered in punctuate fashion. The sentence is the formal structure that imposes a sequential logic to build a statement - some chain of word units that tell a causal story of who did what to whom.

Language is narrative and builds in the way we are meant to think as socialised humans. The rules of grammar encode the very notion of subjects acting on objects. And this is why it is so hard to escape from this kind of linear causal analysis when we start to reason. It is already hardwired into our rhythms of speech. Any different notion of causality (such as the non-linear holism I so regularly employ) literally fails to compute.

So human language is already a code, a form of information, with a rather particular pragmatics built in. It is not designed for abstract philosophising. It is designed for turning our realities into social narratives where “we” are actors, an we live in a world of all kinds of actors, And then actors can be expected to desire their concrete effects. They are the forces that push and pull objects into place.

Thus grammar is our global general model for capturing a complex reality in a single linear statement. Words are like the free variables in an equation. Any x can go in the position of the subject, any y in the position of the verb, any z in the position of the object. The rules of grammar constrain the logic - they carry that part of the burden. And if the separation is clean and not fuzzy, then the x, y and z are unlimited in their variety, Any word could appear in those places. The certainty about the grammatical rules are matched by the uncertainty of the words that might appear in the speech act.

“Hey, I ate an elephant for breakfast.”

You can also see how words also then share the burden in that you might want to check you heard me right. Or believe that I might lie.

If I catch your drift, you mean to say that a theory of information must include syntactical elements such as the one described above. Right? — TheMadFool

You have to have a system of semantic elements and syntactical rules. So you have the uncertainty of the one matched by the certainty of the other. Together, you share a communication space where the general format is agreed and yet you can also formulate an infinity of particular statements.

Then there is the further business of actually interpreting those speech acts. Did we get the intended meaning of some message? Did we hear it right? Was it a lie? Was it too vague or overly pedantic?

You have the three things of sentence structure, word meaning, and social pragmatics.

You are basically saying your self concept is something separate from the environment you grew up in, different, and set apart, to the experiences that created it, all the while you are relating to me the historical basis of your attitudes and understanding. You seem to be a product of your history and times, as we all are.

In evolutionary psychology, it is thought that language developed before a self concept, and obviously an epistemic cut a considerable time after that.

It is difficult to understand, how it must have been to live absent of a self concept. But a number of ancient cultures still retain some roots in such attitudes by seeing themselves as part of the land, and in having an affinity to mother earth.

Take a look at different cultures to recognize how much people are a product of their environment. They see themselves as free agents, Whilst all the while they are a body of information, drawn from their environment, with its own momentum that only has slight freedom of movement.

An epistemic cut is a belief. I can respect your beliefs, so long as you respect mine.

Syntax/grammar isn't then as I thought it was, a completely arbitrary set of rules. There's a rationale, a logic, to it which becomes essential to semantics. The rules of grammar seem to geared towards disambiguation of meaning e.g. if English were without snytax this "sentence" is ambiguous: John George kill. Did John kill George OR did George kill John OR did both John and George kill (somebody)? The point? Syntax plays a critical role in reducing uncertainty as captured by the disjunction bolded above. Claude Shannonesque if you ask me - the idea is to narrow down possibilities to a point wherein we're left with only one, the correct one, the message and its meaning.

It's worth noting here that the "sentence", John George kill sounds like something that a person just learning the English language would say - I've seen many such "sentences" being attributed to African tribes in old comics like Tarzan and Tintin. Is there anything worth investigating here?

Broken English

Ok, perhaps I have a problem. Perhaps I need guidance. You see I'm coherent. So, be as your name suggests. Guide me, please. — Outlander

This is where we are at:


I think of information as a singular co-element of a substance. As the pattern or form describing a substance. This pattern or form can be physical, chemical, energetic, etc, But it is this information of a substances that enables a substance to interact with another substance - It is the information that interacts with the information of another substance. As described earlier, without the information, the substance would be a "NoThing", so could not interact with "anyThing". It would posses no attributes that are capable of interaction. The perturbations of a substance that give it it's distinctive features enable the substance to interact and thus integrate with all other informational substances, including ourselves.
This view of information assumes an underlying substance. As @Daniel has intimated, we only receive the information of the substance. That a substances exists is assumed by the information we have of it. What the substance is changes as more information becomes available of it. This brings into question whether information is a quantity or a quality?

@Daniel has also suggested no information can exist absent of an interaction, and as has been pointed out it is interaction that information facilitates. "NoThing" cannot interact with "AnyThing".
Everything that exists, does so as an evolving self organizing system. Interaction is a constant. So it is clear that information enables the interactional organization of a system. What a system self organizes is information..

I think properties are of an object and therefore there is something in addition to properties.
— Daniel

This is the assumption that I was talking about. "This view of information assumes an underlying substance". I think we agree on this, though we misunderstand each other.

What is the difference between our perception of an object and the object itself ? - the assumption that something more exists.

everything is information from the perspective of everything.

Information describes the physical structure of entities, and enables them to interact with and change other entities, in a reciprocal manner.

You are basically saying your self concept is something separate from the environment you grew up in, different, and set apart, to the experiences that created it, all the while you are relating to me the historical basis of your attitudes and understanding. You seem to be a product of your history and times, as we all are. — Pop

Where did I say that?

If you mean that I can think in a grammar that is both linear and non-linear, then that is true. But I provide the social context in which I developed that skill. Peirce, Pattee and several hundred others in the long tradition of systems science and organicism.

In evolutionary psychology, it is thought that language developed before a self concept, and obviously an epistemic cut a considerable time after that. — Pop

Yep.

Out of interest, what is your source for saying that?

An epistemic cut is a belief. I can respect your beliefs, so long as you respect mine. — Pop

That isn’t how truth is decided. But I will respect any coherent argument and supporting evidence if it eventuates.

— apokrisis

Where did I say that? — apokrisis

It is written all over your posts.

Out of interest, what is your source for saying that?

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~crsi/thesymbolicself.pdf

It is written all over your posts. — Pop

Balls. I say the opposite. Selfhood is enactive both neurally and culturally. Cognition is all about constructing the self in a world. The epistemic cut is how such a useful fiction can come about.

Thanks for the link. I’ve only skimmed it so far, but it is ticking the boxes.

. Is there anything worth investigating here? — TheMadFool

Linguistics devotes much of its energy to disproving Chomsky’s claims about universal grammar. The lack,of syntax in the Piraha Amazonian Indians is the celebrated challenge.

So I”m not saying the causal structure is hardwired. There is an arbitrariness to how much strong grammar some culture might find useful to its way of life. Chomsky made a big mistake in claiming a genetic template.

You also have pidgins and creoles as living examples of how much, or how little, grammar is needed for functional social order.

There are also arguments for why English is particularly good for rational thought as it is so easy to turn verbs into nouns - construct reified abatractions. But these days, such theorising would be forbidden as racist.

It is also obvious that formal education is all about getting us to speak proper like, eh? As we moved to writing, language really did become strict in form with manuals on how to write and speak the code.

So this is all hugely researched and disputed. I give my own distillation which at least has passed a decent level of peer review.

Linguistics devotes much of its energy to disproving Chomsky’s claims about universal grammar. The lack,of syntax in the Piraha Amazonian Indians is the celebrated challenge. — apokrisis

I'm at a loss as to how language can be syntax-less. What about ambiguity like the one I talked about? One way could be if Piraha world is a highly stable, highly-ordered system. For example if dogs never eat men only men eat, the "sentence" man dog eat = man eat dog = dog man eat = dog eat man = eat man dog = eat dog man. Syntax is no longer required for disambiguation for there's no ambiguity in the first place. I wonder if the Piraha language is the closest human language to Shannon's language of bits.

But these days, such theorising would be forbidden as racist. — apokrisis

I was worried about that. No offense was intended, I hope none was taken.

I'm at a loss as to how language can be syntax-less. — TheMadFool

The claim is that it lacks recursion. It does have a regularity of word order - a general subject-object-verb organisation.

So the basic narrative structure is there. But it is a simpler language that doesn’t make it easy to construct nested hierarchical statements - long sentences with multiple clumps of sub clauses - much like the way I write, to general bafflement and annoyance.

All this reflects bigger philosophical battles. Chomsky is some variety of a structuralist (like me) who has tipped over into frank Platonism about rational structure. He drew some silly lines in the sand over the genetic innateness and biological determinism of grammar as hardwired neurology. The Continental types hated this naturalism mixed with extreme structuralism and hyper rationalism. They want grammar to be utterly arbitrary and cultural - rainbow diversity with no one’s system better or worse, more evolved or more primitive.

Linguistics became its own little private shit show for many years. It also was entangled with the shit show debate between the cognitivists arguing thought precedes language and the constructionists who argued language precedes thought.

But it is a simpler language that doesn’t make it easy to construct nested hierarchical statements - long sentences with multiple clumps of sub clauses - — apokrisis

The subject of nested hierarchies is fundamental to how the brain functions and what information is. It's the first I've seen it come up.
Another subject to look at is back propagation as it plays a role in our brains input/output capabilities.
For example making decisions like 'no, don't do that' or 'yes, do that'.

If you think of how information really exists in our brains you shouldn't be thinking of generalized information. The way it is would be a singular core function capable of adding parameters, quantities, qualities, connections or any other capabilities that might exist. This singular nature gives our brains the ability to connect any item the brain contains with any other item the brain contains (and external matter).

Yes, the old dialectic of logos and flux is another version of the same essential position. The Cosmos is about how logical order becomes the shaping hand that reins in chaos. And yet you need that lack,of order as the basic thing to then have something to rein in. This makes the whole system, the larger relation, a unity of opposites, — apokrisis

↪Athena I think as we explore the full meaning of information we will find it is the currency that enables the whole cosmos. — Pop

The thought that comes to mind when reading those replies is chaos is essential to creativity, but total chaos would no form, and manifestation is dependent on functioning form. Evolution requires mutant genes, but all living things come with DNA and a mechanism for stability. Oh my goodness the ancients are looking incredibly aware to me, as they spoke of chaos and the need for order. The pharaoh's job was to keep things in order because too much water or not enough to lead to famine, and so on. Mayans were consumed by the importance of numbers and dates. Chinese I Ching too. Yet if there was no chaos there would be no change, no creativity, no evolution.

Does quantum physics come to the rescue? It gives us uncertainity.

I'm at a loss as to how language can be syntax-less.
— TheMadFool

The claim is that it lacks recursion. It does have a regularity of word order - a general subject-object-verb organisation.

So the basic narrative structure is there. But it is a simpler language that doesn’t make it easy to construct nested hierarchical statements - long sentences with multiple clumps of sub clauses - much like the way I write, to general bafflement and annoyance.

All this reflects bigger philosophical battles. Chomsky is some variety of a structuralist (like me) who has tipped over into frank Platonism about rational structure. He drew some silly lines in the sand over the genetic innateness and biological determinism of grammar as hardwired neurology. The Continental types hated this naturalism mixed with extreme structuralism and hyper rationalism. They want grammar to be utterly arbitrary and cultural - rainbow diversity with no one’s system better or worse, more evolved or more primitive.

Linguistics became its own little private shit show for many years. It also was entangled with the shit show debate between the cognitivists arguing thought precedes language and the constructionists who argued language precedes thought. — apokrisis

I see. If one considers language as a mode of communication, it needs to be about reality and that invariably requires language to capture causality. Causality, as we all know, true or not, is permutationally sensitive (order matters). In fact, all human enterprises seem to be wholly cause-effect oriented.

Causality and other sides to reality in which order matters requires this order (sequence) to be adequately reflected in language. Is syntax just that? A way of representing those facets of reality wherein permutation plays a (major) role.

Take the sentence, dog ate dog (world :grin: ). Order doesn't matter in this case as swapping subject and object makes no difference. There's no need to create a syntax structure that's sensitive to order. However, the sentence, man ate dog is not the same as dog ate man because there's an order in which the event takes place, causally speaking as the subject is a cause that acts and produces an effect in the object.

Man ate dog.
Man dog, ate.
Dog, man ate.
Dog ate, man.
Ate dog, man.
Ate, man dog.

Poetic license! A comma is just another way of expressing order.

As I explore this, and as has been previously mentioned. Information seems to be a fundamental quantity. The universe needs information fundamentally. It could not exist without it. Elucidating this information precisely though is pretty tricky.

And then what you mention is also valid, but comes much later. Ideally we would be able to define a singular information that covers all instances of informational transaction.. — Pop

I did search for the origin of the world "information", and the standard dictionary definition of information.

(1) (Christianity) Divine inspiration. [from 15th c.].

(2) (IT industry jargon) Any ordered sequence of symbols (or signals) (that could contain a message). [from late 20th c.]. (computing) […]

(3) the meaning that a human assigns to data by means of the known conventions used in its representation..

(4) (legal) A statement of criminal activity brought before a judge or magistrate; in the UK, used to inform [...]

I think I was speaking under the definition of (3).

I think I know what the OP means with the information of the universe, and its workings. But should it not be then, the historical data of the universe rather than information. Just my 2 cents.

This thread has been unusually calm & rational & broadminded, perhaps because Pop himself is calm & rational & broadminded. — Gnomon

Sure. I think it is the best attitude in philosophical debates. I try to educate myself to be that level all the time.

How can the system cut itself off from what it is interrelating with. Sorry, it makes no sense to me. — Pop
If it didn't, it wouldn't be 'a self'. — Wayfarer

I'll butt-in here to suggest that what Wayfarer meant by "cut itself off" was not a literal or physical operation, but merely metaphorical or metaphysical dissection. In my imagination, I place my "self" into a different logical category from "other" -- which is everything that is not-self. This figurative notion is what Buddhists sometimes dismiss as an illusion. But if we didn't make that distinction, we'd be unable to make sense of the world. Nevertheless, philosophers should be able to admit that the "line" between "us" and "other" is subjective, and somewhat arbitrary -- though necessary. Did I just confuse or clarify the question?
:chin:

I did search for the origin of the world "information", and the standard dictionary definition of information. — Corvus

For what it's worth, here's couple of my attempts to define the ancient & modern meanings of the term "information", and the act of "enforming". :smile:

Information :
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind (i.e. meaning), as in education, instruction, or training. ___Wikipedia
The English word was apparently derived by adding the common "noun of action" ending "-ation" [Hence, En-Form-Action]
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Note -- A "Form" is a meaningful pattern, as contrasted with random chaotic noise.

What is Information? :
The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind. Another way to put it is to say that “Information Creates Meaning”. Hence it is an integral component of Sentience, Consciousness, and Cognition. It is the raw material of Reason, the essence of Knowledge, and the structure of Mind. The ancient Greeks referred to the whole spectrum of information as “Logos”—often translated as “Word”, but more specifically the conscious motive behind an act of speech: Intention.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

En-Form-Action :
A coined term referring to an ultimate principle in the universe, which functions as the “formal” cause of all physical and meta-physical things. The creative act of En-formation, causes something new to emerge from pre-existing, unformed Chaos.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page9.html

Ideal vs Real Forms :
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms", are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggests that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge.[6] The theory itself is contested from within Plato's dialogues, and it is a general point of controversy in philosophy. Nonetheless, the theory is considered to be a classical solution to the problem of universals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

UNFORMED CHAOS

ENFORMING IMAGE

The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind. Another way to put it is to say that “Information Creates Meaning”. Hence it is an integral component of Sentience, Consciousness, and Cognition. It is the raw material of Reason, the essence of Knowledge, and the structure of Mind. The ancient Greeks referred to the whole spectrum of information as “Logos”—often translated as “Word”, but more specifically the conscious motive behind an act of speech: Intention. — Gnomon

What would be difference between a wood carver carving away his mental image in his brain into a woodspirit carving, and something taking physical shape in the universe via / caused by "information"? Could they not be simply described as the same form of manifestations?

Are there reasons that one is a process or entity caused by information, and the others by sheer chance (heavy rainfall in Indonesia or avalanche in the Alps) or an artistic / economic labor of a guy carving the wood to produce a woodspirit that he intends to sell on eBay?

And more significantly would the information able to reveal how the earth was formed and when?

I see. If one considers language as a mode of communication, it needs to be about reality and that invariably requires language to capture causality. Causality, as we all know, true or not, is permutationally sensitive (order matters). In fact, all human enterprises seem to be wholly cause-effect oriented. — TheMadFool

Just as a matter of argument, what is happening here? No matter what the reasoning for wearing masks, there are some who do not accept the scientific evidence and insist, mandating wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is not what science says it is, but is a government threatening our liberty because those at the top want the power to control us, and we must oppose that threat. Here information does not mean the same thing to everyone. What can be done about this? To me, it is completely mind-boggling! It is like telling someone not to drink from the well because it is polluted, and people throwing stones at you because they think you are trying to control them. Huh, for information to be useful we must trust each other and if don't trust each other information is just a lie, not truly information. :brow:

The later Wittgenstein who had Ramsey softly whispering the Peircean corrections to his earlier logical atomistic realism in his ear? — apokrisis

Yes, I read about that. Wittgenstein apparently did read Peirce , although only mentioned James as someone whose work he was enthusiastic about. And yet he submitted Pragmatism to a critique. I do think he left Pierce behind at a certain point , but I would have to take a closer look at it to say anything more.

What — Corvus

What would be difference between a wood carver carving away his mental image in his brain into a woodspirit carving, and something taking physical shape in the universe via / caused by "information"? Could they not be simply described as the same form of manifestations?

Are there reasons that one is a process or entity caused by information, and the others by sheer chance (heavy rainfall in Indonesia or avalanche in the Alps) or an artistic / economic labor of a guy carving the wood to produce a woodspirit that he intends to sell on eBay? — Corvus

I would say there is a difference between a nature-made object or event and a man-made object of event. This is where I part with Plato and perfect forms. I think the universe just throws it out there and what happens to it depends on its interaction with other forces. Such as the shapes of snowflakes are influenced by the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. A snowflake is not a perfect form created by a mind such as human objects are created by a mind. There are universal laws, but not universal pre-determination. Whereas a man creating a statue begins with a rough idea of what the finished product will be.

I am not sure but it seems to me the discussion is too limited to language. Information is the stuff of the universe and the stuff of earth. It is there for us to study, and we will learn more if we ask good questions, but the answers will be verbal explanations.

In relation to what I asked early about some people rejecting explanations of why we should wear masks and get vaccinated. In the media, I hear some people have a totally different understanding of covid and over crowded hospitals when they experience fighting for air and when they can not get medical help because the system is overwhelmed. Words alone do not necessarily convey the information that needs to be understood. Much of our information comes from experience.

These are neurological disorders that strike at brain organisation at a far more basic level than any “cognitive module” like the rather shaky TOM story. They are both about fine grain and pervasive disturbances to the microcircuitry that in general has to achieve a meaningful balance of integration and differentiation in terms of a modelled self-world relationship.

They show as disorders of social thought because social thinking is the most complex and challenging level of human thought. But the dysfunctions are at a deeper neurodevelopmental level.

Trying to fix the empathy circuit is not addressing the root issue. But reframing the social space of the person in a suitable fashion is of course a way to make their lives better — apokrisis

I don’t dispute that the disturbances are at a deeper neurodevdevelopmental level, I am trying to point out that shifting the account from the cognitive to the subpersonal ‘neural’ doesn’t clarify disputes about the understanding of human behavior any more than shifting from a neurological to a subatomic account. It can be that the supposedly more primordial empirical account
is not up to the task of effectively addressing the supposedly higher order, emergent phenomenon , and this can be not simply because the ‘harder’ scientific model is focused on different aspects of the world, or at a different level of focus , but because the model is an expression of an older philosophical worldview. That’s right , physical, neurological and cognitive theories are manifestations of broader philosophical perspectives, and as these perspective change, so does the ‘hard’ science.

The difference between TOM , simulation and interaction theory accounts of empathy and autism is at the same
time a dispute about how to understand the underlying neural processes, and this amounts to a philosophical disagreement between neo-Kantian realism and phenomenology. Varela developed a tentative model that he called neurophenomenology to point the way out of the older philosophical influences much of neuroscience is beholden to. That is, to offer a neurological account that is no -computational and non-representational.

It may be that such a rethinking of the organism-world interaction is consistent with recent movements rejecting disturbance’ models of schizophrenia and autism. The ‘hearing voices’ movement that destigmatizes hallucination , and the autism-spectrum community, (spearheaded by Temple Grandin , Donna Williams and others,), that refuses the label of pathology, are some examples.

“Trying to fix the empathy circuit is not addressing the root issue. But reframing the social space of the person in a suitable fashion is of course a way to make their lives better”.

Note that the fundamental issue is UNDERSTANDING the behavior one is witnessing. TOM and interaction theory lead to different predictions and anticipations when we are in the presence of real human beings who we care about who act in ways that may puzzle us , and our puzzlement is well noted by them and adds anxiety and depression to their other issues. So when you meet an autistic person( do you know any?) , what do you draw from when you attempt to form a bond with them?
My hunch is your philosophical
presuppositions. which ground your neurological model will give you no choice but to embrace TOM.

pragmatism then points out that we are “selves” to the degree we have managed to construct the separation that in fact allows us to be in this kind of modelling relation with “reality”. — apokrisis

I think you are saying there is no Kantian self , which I agree with , that self is a construction emerging developmentally through social interaction, which I also agree with. Merleau-Ponty, who btw was a child developmental psychologist as well as being a philosopher, said that initially the child makes no distinction between self and other , that self only emerges over time.

But what about models, representations , algorithms, calculations neural machinery? I wouldn’t call this ‘self’ in a strictly Kantian sense , but is it not a temporary internal environment? Yes, it’s only adaptive function is to interact with and adjust itself to an outside , but isn’t the idea of internal machinery troublesome?

The point? Syntax plays a critical role in reducing uncertainty as captured by the disjunction bolded above. Claude Shannonesque if you ask me - the idea is to narrow down possibilities to a point wherein we're left with only one, the correct one, the message and its meaning. — TheMadFool

As Pattee says, it comes down the the Janus-faced notion of a mechanical switch. That is where information and physics intersect at a fundamental level so far as life and mind - systems that model the world and thus construct meanings - are concerned.

A switch is the simplest way to turn the lights on or off. Either the electricity flows or it doesn’t. The switch opens or shuts a gate. And any amount of physics can be regulated by the least actual physical effort. The switch could be the little red button that triggers a nuclear war. A puffy old hand could change its state with a careless dab.

So information theory is about 1s and 0s. The simplest logical counterfactuals. They are a definite choice represented in the baldest possible terms. You either have one thing or it’s other. The switch obeys the laws of logic - the law of the excluded model upon which rational meaning is based. A binary switch either tells of a presence or it’s absence, with nothing else as a possibility inbetweeen.

And what makes this switching state meaningful - for life and mind - is some power always flows through it. A switch is pragmatically employed. The body is set up as a hierarchy of informational switches that regulate physical flows.

An enzyme is a way to switch on or switch off some particular metabolic reaction at the nanoscale. The same metabolism is switched between anabolism and catabolism by the opposed signals of insulin and glucagon at the whole body scale.

Neurons are whole networks of switches switching switches that can thus encode learnt habits of physically appropriate reactions - reactions that are muscular and so again a hierarchy of dichotomous or counterfactual acts. Fibres are set up in lines to expand or contract. Arms are moved because muscles work against bones. A bicep pulls one way and relaxes to allow the tricep to pull in the other.

If Shannon reduced information to a binary code, it is because this just is the natural logic of semiosis and its epistemic cut. For it to be possible for information to regulate physics, the physics must become switchable with the least actual physical effort. Just as a signal must be differentiated from the noise with the least informational effort.

It all comes together - physics and information - at the hinge point which is the structure of a logic gate, a mark that can be made or erased at no effective cost for the system employing such marks.