Yes. From my Enformationism perspective, I interpret Plato's "Chaos" and "Form" as a wellspring of Potential from which Actual things emerge. The hypothetical Vacuum Energy is one example of Actual from Potential. The empty vacuum of space is said to possess Zero Point Energy. Its normal state is neutral, because the positive & negative energies cancel out. Yet physicists imagine the Energy Field as a simmering sauce bubbling with peaks & valleys of energy (quantum foam), where the "negative" values are Potential (unmeasurable), and the "positive" values are Actual (measurable). Likewise, I picture Chaos as a bubbling cauldron of EnFormAction (the power to enform; to cause change). In its neutral state, Chaos is random & disorderly. But in its positive state, it is organized (ordered into knowable forms). That's how I equate "order with information". See my philosophical (thesis) definition of "information" below. :nerd:I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". — Alkis Piskas
Apparently, you missed their point. Like Energy, abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", to experience a sensation. Viewed that way, the author's assertions are not "absurd", but insightful. When energy (e.g light) is organized into meaningful patterns (color; heat; Morse-code; contrast) the human brain interprets that "code" into sensations that we call "feelings" (redness; warmth). Meaningful Patterns are Information. Such encoded (organized) patterns enform (give meaning to) the mind of a rational being.Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?" — Alkis Piskas
My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. For example, the pre-shannon definition of "information" focused on its meaning to a human mind (knowledge). But Shannon abstracted away the Semantic human aspect, in order to convert "information" into empty vessels (1 or 0) that can mean anything to anyone. So, computers "encode", but humans "inform". :smile:In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." ( — Alkis Piskas
Wow! This is the most "exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). — Gnomon
I thought of that too, but it was not so evident. So, it has to do with the use of language then ...abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", — Gnomon
Yes, I think this is evident. I can accept it. No problem. :smile:My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. — Gnomon
I wouldn't worry about that assertion in the context of physical laws. The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile:Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion — Alkis Piskas
Cybernetics is about purposeful control and self-regulation. But it works by directing Causality (energy) into specific directions (channels) to produce useful behaviors. IT typically follows Shannon's technical definition of "information", which omits Meaning & Purpose from its equations, in favor of abstract numerical values. The result is impersonal robotic technology. But AI is now trying to put pupose & personality back into cybernetic systems. :smile:I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception . . . — Alkis Piskas
The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind. :nerd:Wow! This is the most"exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all. — Alkis Piskas
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. — Gnomon
Nicely put!The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile: — Gnomon
I can see this, and it's fine with me, "exotic" or not. But I was talkng about common terms, like "information".The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. — Gnomon
I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? — Alkis Piskas
Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. — Alkis Piskas
That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism. :joke:Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea :grin:, it's out of my range of knowledge and interests. — Alkis Piskas
No, not at all. My "such things" refer to statements like "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ...", etc. I thought I was clear on this.Iassume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. — Gnomon
He doesn't have to know how his brain processes incoming sensations to know and undestand symbolic imagery. Fortunately so! :smile: A person doesn't have to know how emotions work, to feel happy, sad, angry, etc. and to be able to identify and undestand these states.The observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. — Gnomon
Of course, what else can he do? He must however, realize and acknowldge that his reality is subjective, which BTW is the only reality that exists. (Note that by "reality" I don't mean the physical universe or the external world, as a lot of people do.)So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real. — Gnomon
Well, maybe some. But they are mainly created --as already said- for entertainment. They are commercial products. I don't think that the average person, or even most people, who read/watch sci-fi care much about philosophical implications. They can only excite their imagination. As I said, I am a programmer and have been amd still am involved a lot in AI, so I know exctly what it is about and what are its possibilities as well as its limitations. Non-programmers don't. They have no idea. They can only digest --and not always-- the commercial product they are been sold.Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations — Gnomon
Right. However, not only robots but also simple computers can operate "independently", at least appearing to do so. They contain appropriate programs based on which they act and "decide". But they don't and will never have free will and decide by themselves, as much as they can be evolved --sometimes to a large degree-- to do really amazing things.Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. — Gnomon
The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy.
— Gnomon
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
Most interesting! — Ms. Marple
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
I couldn't follow this, my limitations probably. Neither proposal: is this enformationism and materialism or materialism and physicalism. (I probably should have just mentioned one of the two latter ones since they tend to be used interchangeably but not by everyone, just covering bases. We can go with just physicalism from now on, if that's ok).(A) Neither proposal is an attempt to solve scientific problems; (B) instead, they are methodological criteria (not merely "worldviews") for excluding "immaterial" data and "nonphysical" concepts, respectively, from the construction of explanatory models of nature (i.e. phenomena). As such, IMO, materialism and physicalism have been prodigiously effective criteria for centuries despite their respective limitations. — 180 Proof
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.