Information is a material notion. It describes the spatial relationships between particles. — Raymond

What are particles? Isn't any particle really just an interaction of smaller "particles", which are in turn composed of the interaction of even smaller "particles", ad infinitum? So you never get at any particles, only interactions between smaller interactions, or information/processes all the way down. Particles would be the process of mental modeling of other information, or processes, relative to your own.

Not all words in English language refer to things though. — Raymond

Have any examples?
If some word doesnt refer to something, then what would you be talking about?

What are particles? Isn't any particle really just an interaction of smaller "particles" — Harry Hindu

The process stops at a fundamental level. The fundamentals are massless. They interact and form the massive structures of quarks and leptons. They interact because they contain a charge, which is not a material like we see around us. Not a thing. So the word "charge", in relation to elementary particles, is an example of a word not referring to a thing. It's a non-thing in a thing.

The process stops at a fundamental level. The fundamentals are massless. They interact and form the massive structures of quarks and leptons. They interact because they contain a charge, which is not a material like we see around us. Not a thing. So the word "charge", in relation to elementary particles, is an example of a word not referring to a thing. It's a non-thing in a thing. — Raymond

How do you know that there is a "fundamental level" of the universe? Any "level" is just a view from somewhere in the universe, so levels of the universe, including the "fundamental" one would just be different imaginary views of the universe from imaginary vantage points in the universe.

A charge is often described as an attribute, or defining quality, of some thing, which is just another way of saying that it is information.

How do you know there is no fundamental level? There is one more level below quarks and leptons. Two basic particles is the absolute minimum. Elementary particles can't be divided. Charge is not information. That's a property of particles in cooperation.

How do you know there is no fundamental level? — Raymond

Because everytime himans declare theyve discovered the fundamental level of reality we find there are even smaller things, like atoms to protons to quarks.

Besides, how do you reconcile the concept of particles with the concept of the mind (the hard problem)‽ We can refer to the mind with words. Is the mind a thing or particle?

That's a property of particles in cooperation. — Raymond

I can use whatever term you like. Property is a type of information. When you use the terms property, interaction, relationship or process, you are referring to a type if information.

This sounds like functionalism. Do you think mind is the program that the brain is running?

Because everytime himans declare theyve discovered the fundamental level of reality we find there are even smaller things, like atoms to protons to quarks. — Harry Hindu

That is no guarantee a fundamental won't be found.

Besides, how do you reconcile the concept of particles with the concept of the mind (the hard problem)‽ We can refer to the mind with words. Is the mind a thing or particle — Harry Hindu

The mind is for the brain as charge for particles.

I can use whatever term you like. Property is a type of information. When you use the terms property, interaction, relationship or process, you are referring to a type if information. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's why charge and mind are not information.

I have no issues with noting that a mind is a compex process. I think that comparing it to a blizzatd in this way is useful... I often compare it to traffic. I don't think that it being a noun precludes it from being a complex system that may be comprised of activities. I think it being a noun precludes it from being a verb, and I think that careless misspeaking often leads to careless misthinking and false conclusions.

Dunno. This directs attention away from the matter itself. And, so I think, that's exactly the stuff conscious resides in. — Raymond

Yes. That was the point of my post. Mind & Consciousness are not material things, but immaterial mathematical functions. A "function" is a relationship (ratio ; pattern), not a physical object. We typically refer to those Menta-Physical concepts (ideas ; symbols) with nouns, as-if they are tangible things. But the Mind is an Information Processor (not the machine, but the logical procedure) which receives raw sensory information Input and changes it into symbolic Meaning (significance to Self) as the Output.

Since Shannon reified Information (abstract ideas) as-if they are chunks (bits & bytes) of matter, many people imagine "Information" as some kind of ectoplasmic "stuff", that is stored in the brain. But it's "stuff" only in a metaphorical sense. Yet, those mental images are actually abstractions of mathematical logic, in the form of relationships between sensory inputs and mental outputs. Information is stored in the Brain in the form of abstract patterns of relationships. Mind pictures are like the illusory images we see on a movie screen. Metaphors are Meta-Physical. Much of our philosophical disputes are not about the facts, but the significance of metaphors. :nerd:


What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
Note -- a function is an abstract relationship, like a mathematical ratio

Process :
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Note -- actions are not physical objects, but changes in the objects

Symbolic :
a representation of a thing, not the thing-in-itself

Reify :
make (something abstract) seem more concrete or real.
Note -- imagining a bit or byte of Information as-if it is a material object makes it seem more realistic.

Abstraction :
The act of obtaining or removing something from a source : the act of abstracting something, a general idea or quality, rather than an actual person, object, or ...
Note -- The mental processing of incoming sensations filters-out the material "stuff", leaving only the "general idea" of the specific thing represented. The result is a Qualia, not a Quanta. The Idea of a thing is its abstract logical structure, along with attributed Properties or Qualities.

PS___The Beatles' Days in the life says : "he blew his mind out in a car". In this poetic sense, "mind" is a metaphor for "brain". Yet, it wasn't actually "mind" splattered on the roof of the car. People often to equate the function with the material. But they are as different as "heat" and "heater". Heat is a physical process, but it has no material substance. In that comparison, Mind is like Energy : invisible & intangible but sensible & knowable. We "sense" the Mind with our sixth sense of Rational Inference.

nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion — Brock Harding

If only... but the ancient thinking is our thinking. It says pictures in the head, echoing like words. And sentences in the head, representing like pictures.

Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. — Gnomon
Hi. Picking on qualia is a hobbyhorse for me lately, so please pardon a question. How would one establish that qualia are caused by something? — ajar

First, I need to clarify that the quoted phrase is my interpretation of an interpretation that I don't agree with : that Qualia have no causal powers. As ideas (beliefs) in the mind, Qualia do have a causal role in human behavior.

Regarding the "how" of "establishing that qualia are caused by something", you can refer to neuroscience articles such as those linked below. :smile:

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... in terms of the causal role it plays in our mental life:
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Information and the Origin of Qualia :
The cause of sensory qualia is just the same as all the other experiences, it just happens to be focussed on sensory perception.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00022/full

Regarding the "how" of "establishing that qualia are caused by something", you can refer to neuroscience articles such as those linked below. — Gnomon

I just browsed the second link. It seems to completely miss the logical-semantic issue (as perhaps you do), and it's hard to gauge a priori whether it's published by cranks.

If you've actually read it, perhaps you'll be willing to summarize the argument for conclusion #3 below, namely the qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages.

So some basic conclusions can be drawn from the discussion of information processing so far.

• Information can be in the form of structures or messages.

• The brains physical activity deals with information structures.

• The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages.

• Structures represent messages.

• Messages can be identified from structures.

• Structures, but not messages, can be transmitted from a sender to a receiver. — second link

and it's hard to gauge a priori whether it's published by cranks. — ajar

These statements are cranky:

The brains physical activity deals with information structures.

• The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages.

• Structures represent messages.

The brain doesn't deal with structures. Qualia are not information messages, whatever you mean with that. Structures don't represent messages. They can be messages though.

The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages. — Raymond

What about qualia associated with hallucinations? In the case of phantom limb pain, what information message is there? Is it a mistaken information message? What about the beauty of a sunset?

whatever you mean with that. Structures don't represent messages. — Raymond

I was quoting a paper I find suspicious. I'm wondering whatever they can mean by that sort of talk.

Qualia are not information messages, whatever you mean with that. — Raymond

Mentioned above that I never made such claim, but I'll also add that the loose use of 'information' is not much better than the use of 'qualia.'

Huffing their own exhaust in a brown paper bag, it seems to me.

I just browsed the second link. It seems to completely miss the logical-semantic issue (as perhaps you do), and it's hard to gauge a priori whether it's published by cranks.
If you've actually read it, perhaps you'll be willing to summarize the argument for conclusion #3 below, namely the qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages. — ajar

I don't know anything about the Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience organization. But, FWIW, the author of the article, Roger Orpwood, is a researcher at the Centre for Pain Research, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK. The "frontiers" label might indicate a focus on pushing the envelope of Neuroscience knowledge. Whether that qualifies as "crank", I don't have enough information to say.

The Information & Qualia article, in general, agrees with my own understanding of how information processing works in the brain/mind. Apparently, you have a problem with their assertion that : "The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages". But it makes sense to me, in the light of cutting-edge Neuroscience and Information Theory. So, as requested, here's my summary of the argument :

1. Qualia are abstract concepts in the mind, that result from sensory stimulation. The typical example is to point out that there is no Redness in red light. Instead, it's an interpretation in the mind.

2. Information is an abstract pattern that carries Potential Meaning. For example, Morse Code is merely a series of dots & dashes (symbols) that can be interpreted by prepared minds as meaningful Information.

3. Messages are the semantic meanings associated with abstract symbolic patterns, or conventional squiggles such as "2" or "X".

4. Logic is a mathematical relationship (structural pattern) between items in a series or array. If the logic "adds up", the result is value or meaning.

5. Structure is an abstract logical pattern that the mind perceives as the essence of an object or arrangement of objects.

6. Information is processed, organized and structured data.

7. Data is things known or assumed as facts, values, or meanings, as the basis of reasoning or calculation.

So, the article seems to be saying that "the Qualia we are aware of in the Mind are interpreted from abstract logical patterns of incoming data as meaningful information". The brain is just a machine for processing raw data into meaningful messages to the conscious Self. For example, light in the range of 620 to 750nm, has no inherent color. So, it must first be converted into a chemical form, which is then transformed into electro-magnetic forms, and ultimately processed into the Meaning (qualia) we call "Red". The Mind, both conscious and sub-conscious, is the interpreter of meaning; of significance to Self. Does that sound cranky to you? :smile:

Qualia Are Fundamental Particles Of Information

A seemingly secondary but eventually essential theme of Rhet Fardter’s critique of cultural objectivism is the paradigmatic hypermeaninglessness of any predialectical 'society.' If his rehabilitated and purified (counter-)semiotics holds, we have to 'chews' finally either a metaphysically conceptualist desituationism or an ignominiously infinite Conversation. In other 'worse,' either the aforementioned 'we-appropriation' of his 'slurrealism' or conclude after all that art is used to marginalize the proletariat.

paraphrased source

A seemingly secondary but eventually essential theme of Fardter’s critique of cultural objectivism is the paradigmatic hypermeaninglessness of any predialectical 'society.' If our rehabilitated and purified neosemiotic (anti-)theory holds, we have to choose finally between either a conceptualist desituationism or a no less comfortable transdescriptive Conversation. Further, if one can transcend such a surreptitious surrealism synthetically or asymptotically, one is nevertheless nagged by yet another dismaying decision: either accept the aforementioned preconceptual deappropriation or conclude that art is used to marginalize the proletariat. — ajar

Whoa! Hold on there partner. Can you break-down some of those polysyllabic words, so a non-specialist can follow the logic? I have no idea what all that "hypermeaninglessness" means. :joke:

PS__It sounds like a political rant or screed, not a philosophical analysis of Consciousness. :cool:

Mentioned above that I never made such claim, but I'll also add that the loose use of 'information' is not much better than the use of 'qualia.' — ajar

Except that qualia are the conscious understanding of the nòn-material content of the two gauge-coupled massless Dirac fields constituting reality.

What about qualia associated with hallucinations? In the case of phantom limb pain, what information message is there? Is it a mistaken information message? What about the beauty of a sunset? — RogueAI

These experiences lack the physical part. The leg that stimulated the structured charge currents, is not there anymore, but all the processes following are still there. Even without the leg you can still feel pain in your toe. If you lay in the dark, then hold you arm near a lamp, switch the light on and off, your arm is shortly lit by light. If you withdraw your arm, it looks as if is still near the lamp. As if you pull your arm out of your own arm. Same for your leg that's not there. There will remain a kind of after image. An afterpain in the toe, proving that space is a conscious experience.

A yes! I thought you wrote it. My fault! :smile:

Can you break-down some of those polysyllabic words, so a non-specialist can follow the logic? — Gnomon

I hope an initially ingenuous investigation of the following is incipiently instructive. Awareness merely regulates a symbolic representation of Chaos, while an otherwise 'formless' Void illuminates our therefore essentially infinite Experience. If culture always exists only as a symphony of boundaries within which imagination shapes self-righteous belonging, the true Self nevertheless maintains its existential silence as a primordial summoning of Qualia.

a helpful co-creative source

Except that qualia are the conscious understanding of the nòn-material content of the two gauge-coupled massless Dirac fields constituting reality. — Raymond

Too much tuna ! But would not that imply that the subject is performatively recontextualised within a theory that foregrounds a vanishing narrator? If 'truth' is indeed to be capable of significance, reality itself must be created by a lusty proletariate (but only if reality is equiprimoridal with culture; if that is not the case, knowledge is intrinsically impossible within a dismal regime of dialectical nihilism.) In other words, the subject is merely a self-referential pseudo-totality fluffed by a consensus which includes language as a hole.

influences

But would not that imply that the subject is recontextualised as a hollow performance within a theory that foregrounds narrativity ? If 'Truth' is indeed capable of significance, reality itself is created
by the proletariate ( but only if reality is equal to culture; if that is not the case, knowledge is intrinsically impossible within a dismal regime of dialectical nihilism). In other words, the subject is interpolated according to a paradigm of consensus that includes language as a whole, with dialectical nihilism as unfortunately or not the only remaining bridge between 'Truth' and society — ajar

:lol:

More or less! Let's not forget though that to actually and objectively experience the non-narrative aspect of the conceptual imperative as imposed by the political powers in contemporary science dominated cultural exchange, eliminating the subjective... shit, I can't write... I laugh to hard!

I think a different style will make the point easier to understand. The Apparent hypermeaninglessness of the flowing is incipiently instructive. While perceptual reality compliments Subjective self-knowledge, Awareness merely regulates a symbolic representation of Chaos. In other words, a 'formless' Void illuminates essentially infinite Experience. It's no longer cool to admit this, but the secret of the universe is obviously inextricably connected to Immortal Mysteries (as well as, of course, Mortal Miseries.) Though Culture exists as a symphony of boundaries within which Imagination shapes self-righteous Belonging, the Soul maintains its Existential Silence, knowing but not telling that we exist as bio-electricity, a Quantum summoning of primordial Qualia. And yet Death is the wisdom of unbridled human observation. — ajar

:lol:

PS__It sounds like a political rant or screed, not a philosophical analysis of Consciousness. :cool: — Gnomon

Capitalist postsemanticist theory holds that the purpose of the writer is social comment, given that language is interchangeable with truth. That 'rationalism is a mythopoetical totality' is anything but Irrelevant or Obscure. In short, “consciousness is fundamentally unattainable"(Fardter 1976). "Qualia are rather the collapse, and eventually the absurdity, of consciousness". Or, in another register, the main thesis of any legitimately dialectical theory must be the absurdity, and some would say the futility, of any necessarily merely purportedly postdialectical 'language.'

inspirations

shit, I can't write... I laugh to hard! — Raymond

'Random' arrangements of words can signify, and this supports a detachment of words like 'qualia' from any ground in secret 'Experience.' ('Thesis a chew sorry.') Buy the whey, a friend once too no:

Who in his heart doubts either that the facts of feminine clothing are there and that the feminine fiction, stranger than the facts, is there at the same time, and that one may be separated from the other, that both may then be contemplated simultaneously & that each may be considered in turn apart from the other successively?

Random' arrangements of words can signify, and this supports a detachment of words like 'qualia' from any ground in secret Experience.
5mOptions — ajar

That's a good one!

1. What about the qualia of a sunset? What information message is being sent viz-a-viz being awed by a beautiful sunset or painting?
2. What biological advantage does qualia provide? Presumably, information about bodily injury could be sent without any qualia at all, so what purpose does the feeling of pain serve? Also, do robots that have sensory apparatuses that send information to a CPU have qualia?

What biological advantage does qualia provide? — RogueAI

Source of income for philosophers.