art being a subjective experience of an aesthetic...............This seems very prescriptive — Tom Storm

I think "art being a subjective experience" is uncontroversial. The question is, what kind of subjective experience. There are many possibilities - beauty, emotion, aesthetic, the expression of will, a mimetic, social comment, etc. However, my personal choice is "the aesthetic", but this is more my definition than a rule.

And does this mean that art can be any object which causes a mind to resonate aesthetically? — Tom Storm

Yes, it seems so to me. Art can be a novel by Cormac McCarthy, a song by Sade, the film Shooter, the design of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Pyramids, the 1989 Mercedes-Benz 300SL R107, a prawn, chilli and lemon tagliatelle, Einstein's concept of spacetime, etc.

As every object has a temperature, every object is an artwork and has an aesthetic. But that is when quality comes into the equation.

We can reduce life to moments of consciousness, and then what we are conscious of are the things we are interacting with — Pop

An important element of phenomenology that Husserl borrowed from Brentano is intentionality (often described as "aboutness"), the notion that consciousness is always consciousness of something. It is rooted in Brentano's intentionality, in that reality cannot be grasped directly because it is available through perceptions of reality that are representations of it in the mind. Thoughts, such as beliefs, are directed towards objects, ie, a thought doesn't exist alone.

(n) The problem is how to escape from the circularity. On the one hand, I am conscious of something (an apple) and I interact with it. On the other hand, I interact with something (an apple) and become conscious because of it.

Could Landauer's principle explain it? — Pop

Landauer's principle can be understood to be a simple logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease. Entropy is defined as a measure of randomness or disorder of a system.

(n) I see no connection between the randomness or disorder of a system and any consciousness resulting from such randomness or disorder.

interaction with them, is probabilistic — Pop

Interaction can be thought of in two ways. At a large scale the classical interaction between two billiard balls, and at a small scale the quantum interactions between elemental particles.

If the game of snooker is considered at the small scale, the theory is that an electron for example can have a non-zero probability of being in more than one distinct state, which is the definition of a superposition state, such that particles don’t have classical properties like “position” or “momentum”, but have a wave function, whose square gives us a probability of position or momentum. Defining "interaction" as that at the small scale, then the current theory does say that behaviour is probabilistic, in that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

(n) Yes, at a large scale, the system may be static, but at a small scale, the system is dynamic. But I see no connection between a dynamic system and any consciousness resulting from such dynamism.

So an interaction ( resonance )? Sounds like Enactivism to me? — Pop

It does. A quick internet search found an article within the National Library of Medicine by Ryan & Gallagher titled Between Ecological Psychology and Enactivism: Is There Resonance? In their abstract they write "Ecological psychologists and enactivists agree that the best explanation for a large share of cognition is non-representational in kind" and end with "We conclude with future considerations on research regarding the brain as a resonant organ"

(y) Yes, interaction, resonance and enactivism seem important aspects in explaining how the brain functions.

(n) The problem is how to escape from the circularity. On the one hand, I am conscious of something (an apple) and I interact with it. On the other hand, I interact with something (an apple) and become conscious because of it. — RussellA

I don't think you can escape this circularity, which is why I say information = interaction.

The Wave function is probabilistic, and is collapsed at the point of interaction. Consciousness exists at the point of interaction, and not outside of it. This illustrates the wave function collapse nature of reality, and suggests consciousness is probabilistic, until collapsed to a point. This would validate the notion that consciousness exists in frames - exists at the point of collapse of probabilistic information.

However, thankfully, new information has to fit old information, in a constructivist fashion. It has to fit existing informational structure. So having an existing body of information seems to keep things on track - to evolve in a deterministic manner, with just a slight element of randomness, to allow for emergent / novel thought, perhaps through Landauer's principle.

(n) Yes, at a large scale, the system may be static, but at a small scale, the system is dynamic. But I see no connection between a dynamic system and any consciousness resulting from such dynamism — RussellA

I think all systems are enmeshed and dynamic at all scales - they are moving and evolving always, due to codependent interactions. These interactions are equivalent to information. Certainly for sensing organisms these interactions constitute information. However, I do understand one can hardly understand this with the prevailing definitions of information.

It has been good to chat. :up: Unfortunately "reality" has intervened such that I will not have as much time for this for a while, and we have strayed quite a way off topic. :smile:

I don't think you can escape this circularity, which is why I say information = interaction. — Pop

Interaction (gauge spin 1 or 2 fields) is necessary to let information form, embedded in matter (spin 1/2) fields. The difference between these two is that gauge fields carry massless, pure potential energy while massive matter fields carry pure kinetic energy. The masslessness of gauge fields and basic (the massive W-and Z-bosons are not fundamental and the constituents of quarks and leptons are massless, in bound states giving rise to the massive quarks and leptons; I know, highly speculative, but that's the way it is), their pure potential energy, and the pure kinetic energy of matter fields, gives rise to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence.

So interaction is not information, but a prerequisite.

So interaction is not information, but a prerequisite. — GraveItty

It depends on your definition of information. I am saying interaction is the equivalent of information for any two entities that are interacting. That information is a change causing interaction. It is a slightly different take on information. One can ask in what sense can an entity exist on it's own? And we find it can not, it can only exist in relation to something else, so can only exist in interaction / relation. If you pose a field as a fundamental, then it is you who is interacting with that field.

The way I see it is - when two wavicles interact they integrate their information.

Unfortunately I am not familiar with gauge QFT, so cannot reply in those terms.
However you seem to know your stuff, so if you don't mind, I would be interested in an opinion on the mass-energy-information equivalence principle

The way I see it is - when two wavicles interact they integrate their information. — Pop

That's undeniably true! The interaction (by massless potential energy gauge fields like the photon field) takes care of the formation of the massive matter fields by redirecting and adding massive matter kinetic energy. You can see here already somehow the equivalence between mass and energy (massive matter energy has a kinetic energy of 1/2mvexp2 while energy is equivalent to mcexp2 (how can you write math here? LaTex code). From this you can maybe see how the equivalence comes to be. I'm not sure what the connection with art is here. I haven't read this thread and mainly responded to your last comments.

I'm not sure what the connection with art is here. — GraveItty

We have strayed somewhat off course. Thanks for confirming.

I am working on the principle that information is fundamental. Whilst I can understand this logically, I can not verify it with physics. I wonder did you get a chance to look at the link? I wonder what standing such ideas have in physics circles?

From this you can maybe see how the equivalence comes to be — GraveItty

Unfortunately not. :smile:

"reality" — Pop

Ha, good one! My second loud laugh this morning. And behold! I woke my wife. Because of you! Damned... :smile:

Hi Pop. So you are interested in the relation between mass-energy itself or in the relation between the both and information? I guess the last although they are all three intertwined. If an electron field interacts with a proton field by means of an interacting photon field, the both settle in-formation after having reduced their total energy (or mass). Some energy is sent away by means of a photon which possesses potential energy in the sense that it can give kinetic energy to matter particles or change the direction of their velocities (this last is achieved by virtual photons, which can possess zero energy but still 3-momentum changing abilities, so not changing the kinetic energy of the matter it acts on). So when a hydrogen atom is formed (a new integrated form!) the mass of this new hydrogen form is reduced by a tiny amount. Energy is set free by means of a real photon (or more). These new photons possess the potential to give kinetic energy to other matter fields, as long as they are electrically charged. That means quarks and leptons, and probably more basic ones (if the last are massless it would give a nice explanation for the equivalence between mass and energy, but that equivalence is not what you're after I guess, although it nicely fits in and has a relation to form too).

So, the hydrogen example showed how in-formation (litterally!) gives rise to a reduction in mass. This example (being simple and clear) can serve as means to understand more complex forms like a computer contains information. If it acquires more in-formation, potential energy is set free and the mass of the computer decreases. So storing in-formation in matter (or matter forming structures) generally reduces mass.

:rofl: So true!

Thanks for the great reply. I'm starting to get it. I'm always expecting to encounter some major unforeseen stumbling block, but you have given me another avenue of enquiry. I will research this some more. Gauge QFT is not at all intuitive. :sad:

BTW, Welcome to the forum. :up:

Thanks! Another example is the formation of cosmological structures by gravity. The interacting field here is mediated by gravitons (instead of the photons). Due to the fact that these work on spacetime (through which they move at the same time, which makes the situation somewhat complicated, but that aside) they are 2-tensor particles curving spacetime by means of which the masses in the universe can interact. Now as in the case of the hydrogen atom, virtual graviton fields can "pull" masses in-formation (they don't really pull at the masses itself as they only work on spacetime, although they can emanate from them, which is not the standard interpretation, but alas, I'm not standard too!). Spherical structures are the most popular ones up there, although galactic spirals are wanted too. Elliptical orbits (containing a bit more information than circular ones) came into fashion late in the galactic evolution. The gravitational entropy became higher though because of the release of real gravitons during the structure formation. The mass of the structures decreased by a small amount though. Because of that very formation.

Likewise, all life on Earth evolved into structures after the first gravitational formed structures had formed. How could this happen? Well, massive structures formed by gravity are necessary in the first place. Ordered structures can only form if there is a non-equilibrium state and this was certainly the case on Earth. It faces the heat and the cold in the rhythm of day and night. So... Life condensed in formation by complex mediating field generated by the complex structures themselves (self organization!).

The information in a computer is not the information contained in the zeros and ones. That's just an interpretation we put on it, relating them (the zeros and ones, which are fundamentally different from the potential spikes in the neural network in our brainy world) to other structures and calling that information about these other structures. That's the modern viewpoint on information (bits) but it's not what in-formation actually is.

That's the modern viewpoint on information (bits) but it's not what in-formation actually is. — GraveItty

:up: Yes, I agree. Information is an inForming - literally changing the shape of, including mind. Originally this would have been meant to apply to an immaterial mind, but If we accept neural correlates of mind activity, then it is a physical informing. And this physical informing is the fundamental stuff, imo. The way order in the universe self organized, and then life, cannot be via different processes, but via the same self organization of information process.

This "inForming" understanding of information can not be found in any of the dictionaries or Wikipedia anymore, but in several older texts, circa 1950, this is roughly how they describe it.

Thanks again for the excellent explanation. I feel I have heard these words before, but not as well articulated. Normally I would love to continue this conversation, but I have pressing matters to attend to. Thanks again.

A celabration of life and all being, as expressed through human consciousness.