interaction = x - (form, change)
form = x - (interaction, change)
change = x - (form, interaction)
Where x is information. — Possibility
Pardon me for butting-in here. But, I think the point of that article, and others like it, is not that Mass, Energy, and Information are the same thing. But that they are different forms of the same universal "Substance" (essence), each with properties and qualities of its own. For scientists, the take-away is that each of these Forms can be transformed into the other.↪Pop One more question. I don’t really understand that mass-energy-information paper you linked to. What do you think the point of it is? — Wayfarer
Yes. I know that abstractions, such as mental Information, can only be discussed in terms of physical metaphors. We just have to be careful not to reify the metaphors. :cool:Neural correlates is a commonly used expression, of course I'm referring to the neuroplasticity of the brain, and as I said I am assuming that a change in brain matter occurs at the same time as perception. — Pop
But what was the initial argument? Ah, yes. "There is no agreement as to what emotions are" — Alkis Piskas
I did watch Daniel’s video, hence my question. — Possibility
either through interaction OR through spontaneous change; — Possibility
Why only form? It could just as easily be about the creation of an interaction, or of change. — Possibility
a momentary dimensional shift from (4,4,4) to (3,4,5). In the case of our interaction, it’s possible to shift as far as (5,2,5), recognising a two-dimensional difference (direction and momentum) between two minds. — Possibility
More importantly, if information appears as an ongoing event (consciousness), and I assume that the universe exists as an ongoing event (physics), then the stable part I play in this interaction as observer is that of an unintentional, ongoing event (organism). It is the variability in this dimensional arrangement that informs, enabling an awareness of intentionality: the capacity to shift and rebalance a relational structure of form, interaction and change by rearranging energy, quality and logic. — Possibility
↪Pop One more question. I don’t really understand that mass-energy-information paper you linked to. What do you think the point of it is?
— Wayfarer
Pardon me for butting-in here. But, I think the point of that article, and others like it, is not that Mass, Energy, and Information are the same thing. But that they are different forms of the same universal "Substance" (essence), each with properties and qualities of its own. For scientists, the take-away is that each of these Forms can be transformed into the other. — Gnomon
But is it a universalizing structure?
— Joshs
Of course. The dichotomy is the basis of rational analysis itself. There would be no philosophy without the dialectic. — apokrisis
If there ain’t also differentiation then any claim of integration becomes meaningless. Things must be separated to also stand in some relation. As they say, time had to exist so not every happens all at once. — apokrisis
The global social constraints are meant to shape the individual’s psychological development in some time-proven useful way. But as I’ve said, the same system wants to be able to learn and adapt, and so a tolerance for local variety is also part of the deal. If every individual interprets cultural norms according to their own local contingencies, then that feeds back cybernetically to ensure the collective social order can change its own global settings. The whole system can adjust. — apokrisis
There were communists , libertarians and John Birchers, Christian Fundamentalists and atheists, Freudians and Skinnerians,
— Joshs
But perhaps not one communist for every one fundamentalist. Care to guess at a realistic ratio? — apokrisis
I don’t really understand that mass-energy-information paper you linked to. What do you think the point of it is?
— Wayfarer
Pardon me for butting-in here. But, I think the point of that article, and others like it, is not that Mass, Energy, and Information are the same thing. But that they are different forms of the same universal "Substance" (essence), each with properties and qualities of its own. — Gnomon
I suspected that Pop didn't really understand it either, but simply linked to it because of the title. — Wayfarer
To say that Information is "physical" could mean two different things. Either that it has mass like all other physical objects, or that it has the ability to transform into mass, similar to the E=MC^2 equation. In it's meaningful mental form, Information is weightless. But in its physical forms, information may have a variety of masses, depending on its structure.(It appears to be trying to validate Rolf Landauer's claim that 'information is physical' by proposing that a hard drive full of information should have a different mass — Wayfarer
Landauer's notion of weighing a hard drive to see how much information is has gained or lost, reminds me of the doctor who carefully weighed a terminal patient, before and after death, to see how much the Soul weighs. — Gnomon
What is information?
— Pop
I'd be hugely grateful to learn from Kenosha Kid or other physicists precisely if and where it is, within modern science, that one is compelled to interpret the probability of a thermal microstate as the probability of a message?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory?wprov=sfla1 — bongo fury
I just a moment ago read an article by science writer John Horgan : What God, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Have in Common. But, it's actually about the reason why he is an Agnostic about notions that require belief without plausible evidence. And, he makes a statement that resonates with me, as a fellow skeptic and agnostic, who nevertheless finds reasons, not to believe, but to take seriously, some ideas that are on the fringes of Empirical Reality.To say that Information is "physical" could mean two different things. — Gnomon
That is a pertinent point in Information Theory, that many hypotheses, including IIT, tend to ignore : Information is ultimately mind-stuff. — Gnomon
Yes. Where is Information before it is "encoded" in material form? An idea can be "encoded" in a thousand languages and a variety of mathematical equations, or even in dots & dashes of ink, or flashes of light. But where does the Meaning go, in between those transformations? Is it stored in a physical Brain, or a hard disk, or a floppy disk, or a metaphysical Mind? Materialism views matter as fundamental, but Enformationism postulates that ideas & meanings & intentions are primary and primal. Not Real though, but Ideal. :smile:hence all the blather about information having to be 'encoded' before it is real. — Wayfarer
That is a pertinent point in Information Theory, that many hypotheses, including IIT, tend to ignore : Information is ultimately mind-stuff. The necessity of an observer, or knower, of Information (meaning) makes the early universe, prior to the emergence of humans, seem to be devoid of the First Form of Information : meaning in a mind. Energy and Matter are the second and third Forms of Information. Unfortunately, Shannon made it seem plausible to think of Information without spooky souls, or minds, or consciousness. But the term originally referred to meaning in a mind. — Gnomon
Where is Information before it is "encoded" in material form? — Gnomon
“I believe that the only way to make sense of mathematics is to believe that there are objective mathematical facts, and that they are discovered by mathematicians,” says James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Toronto. “Working mathematicians overwhelmingly are Platonists. They don't always call themselves Platonists, but if you ask them relevant questions, it’s always the Platonistic answer that they give you.”
Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.
Shannon made it seem plausible to think of Information without spooky souls, or minds, or consciousness. — Gnomon
But where does the Meaning go, in between those transformations? I — Gnomon
Then you have semiotics in its original sense, meaning interpretation of signs by humans. Code biology builds on that by the analysis of the sense in which living processes encode and transmit biological information e.g. by dna. — Wayfarer
So absence and presence , sameness and difference , form and content are irreducible , universal requirements for any kind of world. — Joshs
Notice that there is nothing in this assertion to differentiate Kant’s notion of universality from Hegel’s or Nietzsche’s or Kelly’s . But when we start inquiring as to whether there are universal contents constraining the dynamics of dialectics, such as Kant’s transcendental categories subtending time, space, causation and morality, we can distinguish different kinds of universality. Like Kant , Hegel fills in the dialectic with a universal content. For Hegel, however, this content doesn’t subsist in static categorical schemes , but in the ordering logic guiding the movement of the dialectic. — Joshs
But look at the difference between the ‘flow’ experience of the intuitive , organic unfolding of a dance duet, and the hostile , conflictual exchange of a political disagreement. — Joshs
No, my perspective and that of another are not to be understood as independent, private regions. The interpersonal relation directly remakes my sense of what my `own' perspective is, as well as what I assume to be the other's integral position. — Joshs
Each word I use gets its sense from its categorical inclusion within a superordinate hierarchy of personal meaning. The trivial day to day events of my life get their relevance from the broader themes of my life, and the most superordinate of these involve my sense of myself as a social being. — Joshs
My personal meanings aren’t determined by a global cultural system the way that my superordinate system determines the sense of my day to day trivial experiences. — Joshs
[Symbolic interactionism is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_interactionism
In a ‘community’ of five individuals in a room, I, as participant, can perceive a locus of integrity undergirding the participation of each of the others to the responsive conversation. To find common ground in a polarized political environment is not to find an intersect among combatants, a centrifugal ground of commonality, but to find as many intersects as there are participants. Each person perceives the basis of the commonality in the terms of their own construct system. — Joshs
If indeed the fundamentalist perspective dominated the communist view in Kelly’s world, this certainly didn’t constrain Kelly’s model. — Joshs
One has to drop the idea of a mind ( interpreter ) in cellular biology to make any sense of it - that is what Barbeiri was on about. — Pop
The necessity of an observer, or knower, of Information (meaning) makes the early universe, prior to the emergence of humans, seem to be devoid of the First Form of Information : meaning in a mind. — Gnomon
Besides, you're still not seeing the distinction that Barbieri makes between the chemical and information paradigms — Wayfarer
First Form of Information — Gnomon
I'm not getting this. Change would be form(1)--->form(2), or f(2) - f(1), right? Is this supposed to be tied to something in the physical world? Can it be multi-dimentional? Does it handle the 'non-physical'? Can you give physical and non-physical examples to show that it works. Maybe something like process notation would work better. Does interaction imply brain presence or not? — Mark Nyquist
First Form of Information
— Gnomon
Gnomon calls it First Form of Information so I'm not the only one thinking about it. — Mark Nyquist
I don't think so. If you consider it in terms of evolutionary psychology, where language evolved before self awareness, and then a subsequent self concept, in terms of self awareness. You see a progression of form. Language > self awareness > self concept > then and only then do our interpretations of universe, god, the plot, etc come into being. As the progressive evolution of form? — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.