One Effect of Light energy is Color, but color is not intrinsic to photons.
Gnomon

That is at least debatable.
Light has a wavelength, which subject A and subject B perceive as color. For subject A the information taken is: Red. For subject B ( hence color blind) the information taken is green. Its the same wavelength.
One can say: Having always a certain wavlength is propertie of Light.

Ad Enactivist view: This means, the perception of the structure of an object and the resulting information for the subject causes in some way the structure of the perceived object?

A lot of adjustments on the field of inference will be necessary. i.e. What about causality?

I fear this requires a logic which is either so complicated (full of exceptions) that it is useless in everyday life, or so trivial that it is useless too.

Ad Enactivist view: This means, the perception of the structure of an object and the resulting information for the subject causes in some way the structure of the perceived object? — Mersi

Yes. It is quite different to naive realism. It would mean such things as light waves and vibrations interacting with established neural information to create what we normally understand to be matter.

I fear this requires a logic which is either so complicated (full of exceptions) that it is useless in everyday life, or so trivial that it is useless too. — Mersi

Not sure what you mean? I would say the information philosopher's definition of old fashioned information - to inform - to literally change the shape or form of something, is the obvious definition of information. The information philosophy that then results from this, is pretty complicated, but that is always the case when learning something new.

I'm starting to see information as an entirely physical process. It seems to be physical everywhere else as the interaction of systems - causing a change in them. But I have some work ahead of me if I am going to convince immaterial minds. :smile: — Pop

Yes. I am one of those obstinate "immaterial minds" disguised as a material body & brain. But that ideal ghostly metaphysical Me only exists as an abstract inference from our experience with the physical world. It is not real --- except in the sense of Information Realism.

Mathematicians have no problem thinking of math "objects" as real, in some meaningful sense. That's because they are used to constructing invisible metaphysical "structures" that are an essential part of their personal reality. Of course, being invisible, they must be represented as chalk or pencil marks on a black or white background. For the rest of us, it makes little difference whether such ideas are real or not, as long as we can take them for granted. For example, "Zero", the number with no referent, and the abstract irrational number "Pi", and the abstract ratios of Logarithms are essential to higher math, and modern technology. But, they all are lacking in material substance, even though the concepts of such numbers can be applied to any set of physical objects..

ZERO, by Charles Seife, is a book about literally nothing. Nothing material, that is. But it opened my eyes to the reality of nothingness, and the real utility of the concept of something missing. More recently, Incomplete Nature, by Terrance Deacon, has revealed the reality of Absence in the real world. We use such references to that-which-is-not-here-&-now (physically ; in the flesh) without giving a thought to how strange it is to talk about that which does not exist, as-if it does exist. Yes, that notion allows some people to "see" ghosts, but it also allows scientists and mathematicians to manipulate things, such as Dark Matter, that have no sensible material substance, and are only known by their mysterious effects on the material world. So, we need to be careful, not to throw-out the well-informed Information with the notional nonsense. :smile:

Notional : existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea.

Informational Realism :
What is the ultimate nature of reality? This paper defends an answer in terms of informational realism (IR). . . . The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262350693_Informational_Realism

Information Ethics :
The book’s arguments are situated in Floridi’s contention that we are living through an ‘informational turn’ or ‘fourth revolution’, following the scientific revolutions of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud.
https://theoccasionalinformationist.com/2014/07/29/floridis-information-ethics/

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Some empty-headed genius improved the traditional Eastern counting methods immeasurably by adding zero as a placeholder, which allowed the genesis of our still-used decimal system. It's all been uphill from there, but Seife is enthusiastic about his subject; his synthesis of math, history, and anthropology seduces the reader into a new fascination with the most troubling number.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000QUEHLM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

That's because they are used to constructing invisible metaphysical "structures" that are an essential part of their personal reality. — Gnomon

I would say, these all have their physical manifestation as the neural patterning of our brain. The main advantage of this is that it allows a regular treatment of everything, in a monistic manner. This allows one to push through the problem of mind and continue a theory of informational bodies.

Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information.

but it also allows scientists and mathematicians to manipulate things, such as Dark Matter, that have no sensible material substance, — Gnomon

We can not know anything about dark matter because it has no form, as yet. It is effectively immaterial, apart from the neural patterning that gives rise to the dark matter concept.

BTW. I heard an interesting description of reality recently: Information and energy are two different aspects of reality, which when integrated create matter. It made me think, what if information existed in the mind, and external to mind exists an energetic scaffolding, when in Enactivist fashion the two are integrated, material reality is created. It would beg the question - is matter real? :lol:

The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other. — Gnomon

:up: This is the new reality.

I would say, these all have their physical manifestation as the neural patterning of our brain. . . .
Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information. — Pop

Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". Yet I use that term in the Aristotelian sense, not the Aquinas sense. My insistence on using the "meta" word, is what leads some woo-woo-poo-pooers on this forum to label my worldview as "Pseudo-Science". As a long-time Skeptic of pseudoscience, I am keenly aware of the gray area on the fringes of science *. Yet, I think philosophy is the best, maybe only, way to shed light in the darkness. And abusive labels are counter-productive. But now, Information Theory has begun to aim a floodlight into the dim mysteries of both Psychology and Philosophy.

The original referent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" (see below) was to mental concepts, as opposed to the physical things he addressed in The Physics. However, concepts have no physical properties, hence are invisible, intangible, and imaginary. As such, they are easily confused with ghosts & souls. Moreover, abstract Ideas are accessible only to Reason and human imagination, hence not real, as far as our animal senses are concerned. But humans are distinguishable from animals in one essential trait : the ability to know and to communicate abstractions : non-physical mental representations of things and concepts. That's why humans can deal with hypothetical scenarios, and philosophical theories, and what-if scenarios, that are not sensible to our physical means of perception. And it's why I make a distinction between sensory Perception and mental Conception (Ideation). Perception allows us to navigate the Real Natural world, but Conception gives us the ability to know and to communicate the abstractions, such as "Information", that constitute the Ideal Cultural world.

I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing, On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. By contrast, it's metaphysical conceptions that "manifest". That's what is happening when someone says, "I just realized . . .". By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, as if it was becoming real. I would hope that, by now, you would realize that my unique usage of "metaphysics" is not a religious or supernatural reference. Instead, it's the Ideal subject "matter" that Aristotle wrote a whole book on.

Since the Enlightenment Era of Empirical Science, word-wrangling philosophers began to be left behind in the dust by scientists, who experimented with real things, and got real results. Which is why scientists, such as Feynman, could express their disdain of feckless philosophers in succinct words : “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”. And non-empirical philosophers were stung by such derision. One response was to change from metaphysical vocabulary to physical jargon -- displaying what some commentators referred to as "physics envy" -- while others dug-in and couched their sagacity in the impenetrable prose of Post-modernism.

But I am not an academic philosopher, so I don't take such put-downs personally. I merely investigate whatever is of interest to me, and use whatever vocabulary seems to convey my immaterial ideas to other meta-physical minds, locked into calcified skulls. "He who has (mental) ears to hear, let him hear (grasp an abstract concept)". Sorry, my early training was not in Science or Philosophy, but in Bible-ology. :joke: :cool:


Concept : an abstract idea; a general notion.
Universal, in philosophy, an entity used in a certain type of metaphysical explanation of what it is for things to share a feature, attribute, or quality or ...
Note -- Aristotle's Metaphysics dealt with Universals and Generalities, that have no physical instances
Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

* The Demarcation Problem :
". . . the concept of pseudoscience is 'without real content' . . . Instead . . . pseudoscience is simply a term of abuse applied to views that scientists regard as threatening." . . . . "what philosophers call the 'demarcation problem' -- finding a principled way to distinguish science from pseudoscience -- and concludes that the problem is intractable."
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (09-10, 2021), by Glen Branch

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". — Gnomon

This is similar to the information philosopher, and I'm glad information philosophy can accommodate both monism and dualism, although it will probably lead to two distinct information philosophies.

I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing, On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. — Gnomon

These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings.

By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, — Gnomon

At the same time, neuroplasticity is constantly evolving along with these new ideas?

when in Enactivist fashion the two [energy & Information] are integrated, material reality is created. It would beg the question - is matter real? :lol: — Pop

Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism?

My own term for that creative & integrative principle in the Real world is EnFormAction. It converts what's statistically Possible or metaphysically Potential into what we know as physically Real, and empirically Actual. But in its statistical state, that not-yet-real stuff is immaterial, and merely a gleam in the eye of the "Creator". Which I call "The Enformer". :wink:


EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism? — Gnomon

This needs to be understood within a theory of information, and we are still working on the definition of information.

The theory seems to be pretty simple - If information is fundamental, then everything is information from every perspective. :grin: But what does this mean? It still needs to be interpreted. If we assume monism, it leads to a theory of everything existing as informational bodies, where consciousness is the latest state of integrated information of any object, so panpschism. The more complex the object, the more complex the consciousness. This, I believe, would be the information theoretic running through systems theory, constructivism, enactivism, and IIT, so it has a lot of momentum. It makes the most sense to me. There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies. This might be Gnomon's pockets of order - perhaps a phase state off energy, perhaps the anthropic principle, the Enformer, or it might be wisest just to call it consciousness and so leave consciousness as something undefined and fundamental, as people like Donald Hoffman are inclined to do.

There is quite a lot of philosophy in what we choose to call it and how this shapes us, which is very interesting to me. Ultimately, logically, we are, in essence, the same thing as the source of self organization. So we are all the same in essence, just different in formation :grin: I like this view and think it is something worth promoting.

It would be easier to understand the Enactivist view if you could give sort of a practical example.
Let´s say, for Information taken from a warning that a cable is carrying current or the Information taken from the perception that the car in front is braking. Situations that are solved now by applying plain vanilla logic.

This is similar to the information philosopher, and I'm glad information philosophy can accommodate both monism and dualism, although it will probably lead to two distinct information philosophies. — Pop

Actually, Enformationism is dualist in the particular space-time setting, but monist in a holistic infinity-eternity context. It's obvious that the Real world is characterized by oppositions : matter-antimatter, positive-negative, left-right, up-down, good-evil, etc. But on the whole, those opposites tend to balance-out to a neutral state. Yet, it's only in the absence of dichotomous space-time that complete harmony can be achieved. Like any other philosophical position, a single coin has two sides, but what you see depends on how you look at it, your viewpoint or attitude. :smile:

Unity of opposites :
The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings. — Pop

Since philosophy is mainly concerned with immaterial Meta-Physical questions, most answers are uncertain and open-ended. Leaving lots of room for "different understandings". But, as you said, the physical "manifestations" of Information are much easier to pin down. I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. Empirical scientists, studying "physical manifestations" are usually able to come close to a consensus on their distinctions. But philosophers try to accurately dissect things (ideas, concepts) -- that have no physical manifestations -- into neat categories, so it's hard to cut them "at the joints". We could debate those -- ideally pre-divided, but somewhat subjective -- "distinctions" till kingdom come. :joke:

Carving Nature at Its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms ( Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ” Such agreement is certainly suggestive.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF

The theory seems to be pretty simple - If information is fundamental, then everything is information from every perspective. :grin: — Pop

Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". The Wiki article says : "The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental." Which is why some interpret that all-encompassing concept as some kind of physical empirical stuff (perhaps like Dark Matter or Dark Energy), while others view it as a type of meta-physical intangible stuff (like Plato's Ideal Forms). Even Spinoza was ambivalent about his ultimate stuff, calling it deus sive natura (God or Nature).

However, in order to account for the contingent existence of the Natural Physical Universe, we are compelled to look beyond the beginning (Big Bang) to a pre-universal First Cause. Spinoza assumed that physical Nature was eternal, but we can no longer take that for granted. And that's where the timeless & spaceless notion of "Meta-Physics" comes in : as 1> an eternal Multiverse, or 2> an infinite array of Parallel Universes, or 3> as a singular self-existent Creator. In the book we call The Metaphysics, Aristotle discussed and analyzed, not physical things, but human ideas about Nature (Physics). He didn't specifically contrast those Immaterial ideas with Material objects, perhaps because he was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of non-empirical imaginary Eternal Ideals. Or because he didn't want to give credence to the popular concept of invisible-yet-real gods in an ideal realm.

I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum). :smile:

There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies — Pop

That is what, in Enformationism, I call "EnFormAction" (the causal energy or power to create novel forms), or "Enformy" (the universal force opposing disorderly Entropy, allowing the creation of "ordered / informational bodies", including ideas and memes in the mind). :nerd:


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

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (positive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. — Gnomon

Without getting into a debate about this. I do not see a reason to assume dualism? If information is fundamental, then the integration of information is also fundamental. That information integrates is due to forces. The information integrating would feel forces acting on it to cause it to integrate. So the world seems monist and panpsychic, and experiential universally, though only some of it can posses self awareness.

Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism.

So I wonder why the need for an immaterial mind? All the instances you pose can be explained by physical neural pattern, so there is no need to think of mind as immaterial, yet you and others do, and I wonder why? What would you lose if mind had a physical basis? - Of course, what you believe is your own affair, but I would be grateful if you could answer this one question, that I have difficulty understanding.

My strong impression is that order in the universe exists in material form. Things exist in some form - perhaps only temporarily, but in order to know anything we have to know it's form. Information seems to be the interaction of material forms. The change in the form of a material seems to be information. That a material is perceived is information, and the perception exists as a change in neural state, and neurobiology has elucidated a good deal of this.

That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon

No I don't think so at all. The information that Floridi is elucidating is implicit in systems theory and constructivism, which are main stream science, then Enactivism integrates these two from a biological perspective, which neurobiology agrees with, then IIT uses these theories to arrive at an evolving informational body view of everything. These are all logical and philosophical theories that agree with observation. They are accessible to all, no lab necessary, and there is lots of room for interpretation.

I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum). :smile: — Gnomon

I would be looking to elucidate this predicament from an information perspective - how we are constrained by the information composing us- both biological and experiential. And how we are free to relate to this predicament, seemingly as we please, due to the facts of the matter persisting regardless of our interpretations of them. This seems an area worth exploring. There seems to be an information game at play, where information informs and constricts our reality, and how we are in this sense an informational body. So much new philosophy on offer!

Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". — Gnomon

I envision a multiplicity creating a system, and that system then interacting with the other systems it is enmeshed with. Similar to Newtons enmeshed clockwork cogs, but caused bottom up in a nonlinear and emergent fashion. This would represent the ordered forms within an ordered pocket of the universe, enmeshed together as informational bodies, ultimately creating the larger body, such as the biosphere, in the case of the Earth.

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems. These interactions can be reduced to the interaction of one part to another part, which is identical to the basis of logic, which exists in the relationship of one part to another to draw a distinction that is information. Similar to Spinoza, as you describe.

Without getting into a debate about this. I do not see a reason to assume dualism? — Pop

OK. Apparently "dualism" means something different to you. You may be thinking in terms of Body/Soul Dualism, while I'm talking about Property Dualism or Substance Dualism. In any case, it's all Information to me. :smile:

•What is the metaphysical status of IIT? :
•materialism, dualism, idealism,
panpsychism, Russellian monism?
http://consc.net/slides/iit.pdf

Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism. — Pop

The "god" of PanDeism, or as I prefer PanEnDeism, is only invoked to explain the contingent existence of this world. I call it "The Enformer". And as the Eternal Mind, the Enformer puts "mind into all matter". :cool:

Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon
No I don't think so at all. — Pop

I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek point. :joke:

There seems to be an information game at play, where information informs and constricts our reality, — Pop

If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns? :wink:

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems. — Pop

That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships"

Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Check-out this site : https://www.incrementalcompressionconjecture.com/summary
The link is in the PF thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11872/a-conjecture-that-consciousness-is-based-on-quantum-information

I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees. :smile:

I'm talking about Property Dualism — Gnomon

:up: Oh, I see.

the Enformer puts "mind into all matter". — Gnomon

:up:

If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns? :wink: — Gnomon

This would take some explaining, but just briefly - what I am thinking about is what gives us form? And it is information. So whatever we think about, kind of constrains and shapes us.

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems.
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon

I'm glad we have a similar in outlook.

I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, I agree. I would have to examine it in more detail, but I can not see that information exists at all in the quantum realm. The quantum realm is probabilistic and random. Information, in my mind, only exists in a form, and the quantum realm is formless, at least for now. However, the compression of information, once out of the quantum realm sounds a little like the information game I'm thinking about, and integrated information, as you say. I think the information occurs in pockets of the universe - in these pockets the forms evolve together to create a large self organizing system, which all the subsystems are dependent on and at the same time create. A system integrates information - that is all it does, so I would put my money on a systems understanding.

Nice website and presentation however! This too is something to think about. :smile:

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems.
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon
I'm glad we have a similar in outlook. — Pop

The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs ( a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system.

Entanglement is a mysterious relationship, but it seems to have something to do with Conscious minds. In some sense, each particle is Informed by the other. And conscious observers are somehow able to measure the meaning (or value) of that inter-action-at-a-distance. Which Einstein thought was "spooky", and couldn't be true, because it seemed Magical instead of Physical. Yet, a century later, we seem to be stuck with that spooky reality. Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic.

Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism. :nerd:

Quantum Entanglement :
Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/03/08/20152/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/
The verb "To Measure" originally meant : to extract information from an object into a mind (L. mens-). To take-the-measure of something, is to remove a piece of the "essence" of that thing. And I think that "intrinsic quality" is what we now call Information about the thing.

An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

The links below compare the notion of the "neural correlates of Mind" with the filamentous structure of the material universe. Some others have proposed that the universe is actually the brain of God. I don't take it too seriously, or literally. It's just philosophical candy for musing & chewing. :grin:

Neural Correlates of Cosmos :
https://nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/the-strange-similarity-of-neuron-and-galaxy-networks
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/neuron-web-in-human-brain-is-similar-to-the-network-of-galaxies-in-the-universe-9034231.html

The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs ( a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system. — Gnomon

Yes, this interaction is crucial- it is the basis of logic, and the interaction of systems can be reduced to this singular interaction of one part to another. I think Landauer's principle might be relevent to it. I think we are saying something similar just with different language and concepts. :up:

Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic. — Gnomon

In the double slit experiment, an observer is replaced with a measuring device, and the wave collapses just the same. This leads me to believe information is an interaction of form - that the wave must be collapsed to form before it becomes information. This is also the case for entanglement, there is no information before collapse.

Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism. :nerd: — Gnomon

:up:

The links below compare the notion of the "neural correlates of Mind" with the filamentous structure of the material universe. Some others have proposed that the universe is actually the brain of God. I don't take it too seriously, or literally. It's just philosophical candy for musing & chewing. :grin: — Gnomon

I don't think there is much in that either, except that that the laws governing one part of the universe are going to be similar to the laws governing another part, and a brain is one part of the universe, so there will be some similarities, but not necessarily the sorts of similarities suggested in the articles.

However I have only seen a little of the latest deep cellular imaging, and what I've seen does make me wonder. Need more information on this one for sure. :smile:

In the double slit experiment, an observer is replaced with a measuring device, and the wave collapses just the same. — Pop

Some have noted that it's not the dumb measuring instrument, but the intelligent scientist who looks at the abstract read-out, and realizes what just happened. In that case, the collapse doesn't occur until the experimenter opens Schrodinger's Box, and realizes the the cat is not half-dead, or all-dead, but fully alive. In other words, it's not the measuring stick that does the trick, but the extraction of that information into a receptive Mind. The mind is the ultimate "measuring device". Those mechanical devices don't care one way or the other. What matters is the meaning. :nerd:

Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse? :
On this view conscious experience is something in addition to the brain processes that accompany it, something non-physical.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

What is the meaning of Mensura (to measure)? :
a doctrine first propounded by Protagoras holding that humankind is the measure of all things, that everything is relative to human apprehension and evaluation, and that there is no objective truth.
(Latin, mens- = mind)
mind, intention, brain, intellect, faculties, understanding
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+mind

I think Landauer's principle might be relevent to it. I think we are saying something similar just with different language and concepts. — Pop

Landauer says that "erasing" information is equivalent to Entropy, which is the result of deleting Energy from a system. So, extracting Energy is also the removal of Information, and vice-versa. That's why I conclude that when a human observer "measures" an experiment, he is literally extracting Information from that system, into his own mental system. The energy loss may be minor, but the gain in meaning could be significant to the observer. In any case, that act of measurement makes a change in the thing observed : such as a wave collapse. :smile:

there is no information before collapse. — Pop

I would re-phrase that assertion, to say that "there is intrinsic information, but no meaning to the observer, until the collapse. Before the observation, the meaning of that information is merely Potential. But the act of measuring converts it into Actual (manifest) meaning (knowledge) in the mind of the observer. :cool:

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note -- EnFormAction is analogous to Energy : it exists in both Potential and Actual forms.

PS__(re: "different language") I think you have more of a formal philosophical or scientific background than me. I have only seriously pursued Philosophy in my old age. So my language tends to be idiosyncratic and eccentric.

Some have noted that it's not the dumb measuring instrument, but the intelligent scientist who looks at the abstract read-out, and realizes what just happened. — Gnomon

Yes, I understand, the information does not occur for any individual until the externality causes a change in neural state. However I am under the impression that an unattended measuring device collapses the wave, in the double slit experiment, upon measurement. Thereby collapsing it to a point particle - which is necessary to extract information out of it. This is important to the idea that information is an interaction of forms. It would be a helpful if you could confirm, or deny this?

there is no information before collapse.
— Pop
I would re-phrase that assertion, to say that "there is intrinsic information, but no meaning to the observer, until the collapse. Before the observation, the meaning of that information is merely Potential. But the act of measuring converts it into Actual (manifest) meaning (knowledge) in the mind of the observer. :cool: — Gnomon

Yeah. I would think of information as being the change in mental state, due to an interaction with an externality. So much the same thing.

This is important to the idea that information is an interaction of forms. It would be a helpful if you could confirm, or deny this? — Pop

I'm not qualified to confirm or deny your concept that "information is the interaction of forms". But I tend to focus on information as meaning, which is something more than a simple collision of "forms". In the absence of an observer, the forms may simply annihilate, like matter/anti-matter. Any meaning of that "interaction" is enformed only in the mind of the independent observer.

However, the Wiki article (below) on the double-slit experiment concludes that a conscious Observer is not the cause of the collapse of the wave form into a particle form -- merely a by-stander. If so, it would imply that the slit effect is caused by a meaningless mechanical interaction of matter/energy (particles), with no input or output of meaning. It would also deny my assumption that the extraction of meaning by a conscious observer is, perhaps not necessary, but sufficient to cause an amorphous wave of potential to convert into a point of actual matter. By that I mean, the interaction could be meaningful or meaningless, depending on the context (the experimental setup). If no observer, there is no memory of that ephemeral event. If no-one ever looks into Schrodinger's box, how would we know what happened?

I have never bought into the woo-ish interpretation that Consciousness is capable of magical mind-over-matter effects. Instead, I imagine the cause/effect in terms of ordinary energy exchanges, which I label EnFormAction. Energy is one form (a waveform) of Generic Information, while Meaning is another form (meta-physical) of the same universal substance. Since I'm not an expert in quantum physics, all I can say is that the "cause" question is controversial and debatable. In any case, I can generally agree with your formulation of the conclusion, that interacting "forms" result in producing new "information", i.e. new forms (particles), that may be different from the original forms (waves). From my perspective though, the original "forms" possess the Potential for causing novelty. And the interaction of two old forms will usually cause a change in both of the originals.

That "interaction of forms" I would liken to the mechanism of Evolution. For example, an existing species can mutate into a potentially viable or non-viable form. Such mutations are equivalent to the non-local un-certain waveform of the slit experiment. But when two or more of those different forms combine (via sexual or asexual pathways), the output of that "interaction" is a novel combination of the original genes (potentials). Then, statistical natural selection weeds-out (annihilates) the non-viable forms, and allows the viable forms to continue the process of evolution. In the slit analogy, the random formless potential of a light wave, when perturbed by interaction with a physical obstacle (the slit), is forced to materialize into specific enformed particles of energy. :smile:


Observer Effect :
The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Quantum Consciousness :
Does the change in the behaviour of particles seen in Young’s double-slit experiment really suggest that consciousness can alter matter and exist separately from the brain?
https://medium.com/science-first/the-double-slit-experiment-demystified-disproving-the-quantum-consciousness-connection-ee8384a50e2f

Interacting Waves result in positive (reinforcement) or negative (null) changes :
reinforcement = particle . . . . . null = annihilation

I'm not qualified to confirm or deny your concept that "information is the interaction of forms". But I tend to focus on information as meaning, which is something more than a simple collision of "forms". In the absence of an observer, the forms may simply annihilate, like matter/anti-matter. Any meaning of that "interaction" is enformed only in the mind of the independent observer. — Gnomon

That is excellent!! There is an asymmetry in the interaction of forms, otherwise they annihilate. Wow, this bears thinking about!

If so, it would imply that the slit effect is caused by a meaningless mechanical interaction of matter/energy (particles), with no input or output of meaning. — Gnomon

That is how I understand it also - purely an interaction of forms, where the immaterial / formless wave of energy is understood in terms understandable by the measuring device, and then in terms understandable by the observer, which would imply that "meaning" is the last information integrated by a body of information?

That "interaction of forms" I would liken to the mechanism of Evolution. For example, an existing species can mutate into a potentially viable or non-viable form. Such mutations are equivalent to the non-local un-certain waveform of the slit experiment. But when two or more of those different forms combine (via sexual or asexual pathways), the output of that "interaction" is a novel combination of the original genes (potentials). Then, statistical natural selection weeds-out (annihilates) the non-viable forms, and allows the viable forms to continue the process of evolution.In the slit analogy, the random formless potential of a light wave, when perturbed by interaction with a physical obstacle (the slit), is forced to materialize into specific enformed particles of energy. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, so much comes to a head in the interaction of forms, which ultimately becomes a moment of consciousness. I'm not aware of any literature specifically describing this, are you?

Thanks for the answer, and for humoring my speculations.

Yeah. I would think of information as being the change in mental state, due to an interaction with an externality. So much the same thing. — Pop

Yes. EnFormAction causes changes in both physical material, and in meta-physical states. It's the subsequent chain-of-causation after the First Cause. That initial impetus necessarily possessed Potential for both physical effects and meta-physical effects. That's why our current reality includes both Matter and Mind. The Big Bang was not just a fireworks explosion of matter & energy -- no room in the Singularity for a universe full of 3D spatial matter. Instead, I envision it as the execution of a no-D Program of Potential EnFormAction, which being metaphysical (mind stuff) requires no space for storage, or time for its virtual static state. That's how a sub-Planck-scale pinpoint of Potential could give birth to a universe, that is currently a zillion times larger, and has existed for zillions of Planck seconds. *

Of course, this being a Real material world, the change in Ideal mental state we call "Consciousness" or "Meaning" is preceded by a change in the physical state of the brain. The "external" patterns we observe make a difference in the mental patterns of our Mind. This may sound like mere semantics to a Materialist, but it helps to explain what Bateson labelled The Difference That Makes a Difference. In other words, its the change that makes a meaning (some pattern that is significant to the observer). The difference is expressed mathematically as a ratio, such as the difference between Life & Death. :gasp:

The Difference :
Gregory Bateson, an English anthropologist is credited with this phrase. He was talking about information and how it can affect things. What information can we know that will completely change the situation/experiment/culture?
https://www.stephanie-burns.com/blog/2017/3/25/the-difference-that-makes-the-difference
Note -- in physical terms : "The potential difference (which is the same as voltage) is equal to the amount of current multiplied by the resistance." And metaphorically, a mental difference has the potential to complete a circuit (meaning ; meme) in another mind.

* Some physicists are still trying to imagine an explanation for the beginning and expansion of the universe, that doesn't require a something-from-nothing beginning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/09/17/if-the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-what-was-it/