Why aren't we talking about the behavior of neurotransmitters and dopamine? Why is hippocampus not mentioned here? I'm at a loss for how to argue about this because we have gone so far away from the true source. We criticize and shun neuroscience, yet we're willing to turn to physics to make our point. Did we sign an exclusive contract with physics? Or do we think that we're taken more seriously if we use physics instead of neuroscience? — L'éléphant

The true source being the human brain according to you? A rather large assumption to make I believe.

There is a lot at play here. Physics, chemistry, biochemistry, neurochemistry, the human brain. The system is built from the ground up.

Consciousness deriving from physics does not preclude or deny the applicability of neuroscience as being built upon it.

What I was saying is that consciousness may not be human centric. Ie that the human brain is very good at exemplifying and refining consciousness through evolution, but that consciousness itself derives from fundamental principle's that go further back than the human brain and is more inclusive of other lifeforms that also exhibit aspects of consciousness on varying levels.

Taking abiogenesis as an example, who's to say consciousness is not operating on all levels of self organisation (negentropy)?

The transition from non living chemical cycles and systems to "living ones" is likely a steady, graduating, linear progressive development and nothing sudden/abrupt.

Which propones that agency, self, and consciousness is more like a wave than something discrete and particular. That sentience is something that slowly emerges and advances than something that "suddenly switches on" and even less likely something that only human brains do. Primates are very similar to us (99%). To say that consciousness is conferred by that 1% difference doesn't seem cohesive.

I believe apes have emotion and experience like fear, anger, joy, sadness, curiosity and playfulness etc. Like many other animals. Plants are probably conscious in their own way, communicating with one another, experiencing acute stress, sending warning signals to other plants. Just because we don't understand it well doesn't mean it's an impossibility.

My suggestion (trying not to sound condescending or. dismissive here) is to really open your mind up to at least contemplating (for funzies) how consciousness could be more basic (time and space perception from matter experiencing energetic impulses/catalytic processes).

Actually, there is one substance in the world with the consistent property of causing change. That universal Substance (Aristotle's essence)*1 functions like an enzyme in the world : it causes Change, but does not itself change. That substance is what we call "Energy". It is invisible & intangible & immaterial, but it's what makes the world go 'round. — Gnomon

Agreed.

Which is why physicists refer to the opposite of negative Entropy as positive Negentropy. — Gnomon

Bit confused here. Negative entropy is what life does. From What I understand Positive negentropy is "moreness" of negentropy. Negative negentropy (double negative) is entropy (disorder).

So for me your "what physicists refer to the opposite of negative entropy as positive negentropy" are one and the same.

So, if you can accept that shape-shifting Information is also the essence of Consciousness, then the so-called "Hard Problem" becomes simpler. You do the math. :smile: — Gnomon

Information shape shifts in the general universe. Energy transforms from one form to another at a very basic level. So if this is consciousness it is at its lowest state of awareness in the general universe. I believe complexity leads to greater awareness. As complexity is an acknowledgement of more control, and control requires awareness/imbedded knowledge.

All in all I like your "enformy" description. I actually think we are singing from similar hymn books. We are merely describing the same thing from different backgrounds/povs.

But bravo. I like your consolidation of information, entropy and energy.

However I'm inclined to believe that space and time are perceptions of the matter-energy dynamic. Perceptions meaning that the conversion of energy to matter (e=mc2) is consciousness. That consciousness is born from relativity.

As two objects cannot be relative to one another without an observer. Space and time is a product of physical memory.

Bit confused here. Negative entropy is what life does. From What I understand Positive negentropy is "moreness" of negentropy. Negative negentropy (double negative) is entropy (disorder).
So for me your "what physicists refer to the opposite of negative entropy as positive negentropy" are one and the same. — Benj96

Yes. both physical Negentropy and philosophical Enformy are characteristic of living organisms. And Entropy is characteristic of dying systems. But when Shannon adopted the physics term into his Information (communication of meaning) theory, it had a different context and meaning from Thermodynamic Entropy*1. Likewise, "Negentropy"*2, although superficially similar, applies to a different context. Ironically, the negation of a negative concept may sound like a non-positive concept.

So, no. Negentropy is not "one and the same" as Enformy*3*4, but the confusion is understandable. Which was the point I was trying to make in a short post. I go into much more detail in the thesis and blog. Thermodynamic Negentropy is not the negation of a negation in a mathematical sense. :smile:


*1. Entropy :
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy fundamentally damages isolated systems, so it is possible to distinguish between open organizations and closed organizations (isolated system). Isolated systems tend toward disorder, that is, things tend toward chaos over time.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8625646/

*2. Negentropy :
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. The concept and phrase "negative entropy" was introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book What is Life? Later, Léon Brillouin shortened the phrase to negentropy. ___Wikipedia

Thus Schrödinger arrived at his famous remark, “What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help produce while alive.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005272899000651
Note -- Entropy is a tendency toward dis-organization. The 'negative" is superfluous. Enformy is a trend toward organization. Not a physical thing or object, but an evolutionary direction. A trend is knowable information. The positive or negative connotation is in the mind of the observer.

*3. Entropy and Information :
Several posts and my classes in thermodynamics equate increase in entropy with loss of information. Shannon clearly showed that the information content of a message is zero when its entropy is zero and that its information content increases with increasing entropy. So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order. Why does physics continue to get the relationship between entropy and information backwards?[

"So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order". No, information is conserved, and so does not increase. Entropy is increasing and this means that the evolution goes from ordered universe towards disordered universe, so exactly the contrary of what you are saying. Entropy is equivalent to disorder, or uniform information. The total information is conserved, but the uniform information is increasing.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75146/entropy-and-information
Note -- In the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information (EnFormAction) is similar to Energy, in that it can be both constructive (organization) and destructive (disorganization). So total Information is conserved, while order increased and decreases. Likewise Enformy, not Energy per se, is merely am overall positive trend toward order in the universe. That the same thing can be both positive and negative can be confusing, when used in the wrong context.

*4. 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 (additive 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

For me change is a property of potential. — Benj96

Not true from my personal perspective/rationalisation. The changing thing is changing. The constant it abides by in doing so - change - is permanent in its phenomenonology.

In this case your statement would be a conflation of the actor (change) with the acted upon (the changed) - they are a dichotomy. — Benj96

You are making a category mistake. You state that change is a property. but then you make change the thing, the actor. At one point change is the predicate (property), and at another time it is the subject (actor). That's equivocation. Then what you say afterward is incoherent to me because of this equivocation.

I hope i am articulating the concept well. Forgive me if it isn't unclear I'm happy to further elaborate if need be. It's a tricky subject one I've been thinking about for years now — Benj96

You'll have to clear up that issue, stated above, before we can proceed any further toward a mutual understanding.

You are making a category mistake. You state that change is a property. but then you make change the thing, the actor. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Because energy is (actor) and does (property). The two are united as a singular entity. It "is doing-ness".

So it is the actor and the acted upon. What else can energy act on other than itself? Could you give an example?

Matter is also energy. It is energy that has been acted upon (converted into the material) by energy (itself). It's just more stable, existing at a slower rate, bonded, pent up - ie changing at a slower pace (object permanence) relative to the fastest pace (speed of light) E=mc^2.

And this matter can be converted back to its non pent up energy form again (nuclear physics).

There is no categorical mistake. The 2 categories are synonymous with one another. We split them apart for convenience, to isolate /investigate specificities and individual characteristics unique to every form energy can take/ every state it can occupy. In other words, we define.

You'll have to clear up that issue, stated above, before we can proceed any further toward a mutual understanding — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope the above clarified it better.

Just like a coin has 2 faces, is one face any more "coin" than the other? Is matter (acted upon) any more or less the same substance than the actor (speed of light energy). The only thing that separates them is spacetime (their relationship to one another, just as a coin has a relationship between the two faces).

Yes. Because energy is (actor) and does (property). The two are united as a singular entity. It "is doing-ness". — Benj96

As I said, this is incoherent to me as a category error which result in equivocation. The subject (actor in your terms), and the predicate (what the actor "does"), refer to two distinct things. We can assign the same name to these two distinct things "energy", and this is very common in cases where a word has meaning as a noun, and meaning as a verb, but we must maintain this separation of meaning, to avoid ambiguity. And if that ambiguity is actually utilized within a logical demonstration this is the fallacy of equivocation. And that is what you are doing. Therefore you argue by equivocation and this renders your argument as incoherent to me.

Just like a coin has 2 faces, is one face any more "coin" than the other? — Benj96

The coin is the subject and it has two stated properties. face one, and face two. The coin itself is not face one, nor is it face two, or even a composition of face one and face two. It is not a composition of the two because there is an endless number of properties which can be named, the edge, the printed figures, the weight, the shape, etc., and we could never name all of them required to produce "the coin" as a whole. So if "energy" is your subject, as "coin" is, whatever properties you name, which energy is supposed to have, they are not the same as energy.

So it is correct to say, as you propose, that one face is not any more the coin than the other, but no matter how many properties you name, you do not get "the coin". Your category mistake with "energy" is that you assume "energy" as subject, and its properties, as predicates, are the same.

refer to two distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover

When we make them distinct. Sure. The universe as a whole is a single thing. One category. It can be itemised/fragmented into as many categories as you see fit by establishing boundaries, sets, delineations. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a single thing.

The whole thing is connected and in a state of flux. How microscopic, segmented and specialised you want to get or how macroscopic, fluid and spectral you want to get is entirely up to you.

I speak in terms of unifying closely related relationships. You speak in terms of separating them apart into distinctions. Both have their pros and cons and reveal different aspects of information and knowledge. The premise one has for arguments sake dictates which direction one goes.

The universe as a whole is a single thing. — Benj96

Even making this statement is an act of demonstrating the separation. You have the thing you are talking about, the subject, named as "the universe", and you have what you are saying about it, the predicate, "is a single thing". Therefore your statement implies necessarily, a specific type of separation within the universe which you exist. Despite your claim that we can start with the assumption of "a single thing", you have already demonstrated that you assume two things, the thing itself (named the universe), and what you have said about it (a single thing). These two do not have the same meaning therefore they necessarily refer to distinct things. Your claim therefore is self-refuting, it demonstrates itself to be false.

You cannot avoid the separation by denying it.

I speak in terms of unifying closely related relationships. — Benj96

The problem obviously is that the act of "unifying" requires a prior separation. You want to start with the premise of "a single thing", thereby denying this prior separation which is logically necessary for your claimed act of "unifying". In on other words you deny the reality of what is logically required for the act which you make.

Even making this statement is an act of demonstrating the separation. You have the thing you are talking about, the subject, named as "the universe", and you have what you are saying about it, the predicate, "is a single thing". Therefore your statement implies necessarily, a specific type of separation within the universe which you exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Thats how language works. I could just say "the universe is the universe" or even more extreme a case just keep chanting "oneness" repeatedly in response to everything you say. But that wouldn't be informative would it - information of course being what i use the distinctions imbedded in language to get across.

"Language" is not "concept/idea" is not "reality." None of those three things are equal to one another. And they cannot be. That fundamental trinity is the triad of miscommunication and individalism.

If we never made common sense assumptions about what the other means by a phrase and instead requested infinite regress qualification of every single individual word we would be here until eternity. Thats based on how specific you want to get. But there is also brilliance/value in the fluidity of not being highly specific to convey general meanings which is what i was trying to do. Thats the "fluency" of language.

You pointing out that my language breaks down into little itty bitty pieces that are all separate doesnt detract from the notion - my perspective that the universe is the "whole cake" and everything distinguishable within it is a fraction of that cake.

Theres a reason why the outer box on a venn diagram depicting sets is called "U".

So again, i reiterate, we can go splitting things apart and examining them in isolation like energy and matter as completely seoarate things. Or we can unify them (as einsteins equation does) and approach a singular fundamental, discussing how they are two faces of the same proverbial coin. But it depends on whether you want to accord or discord with me, that will dictate whether the conversation moves forward fluidly or remains static and fixated on particulars. (the dynamic triad i mentioned early).

There will always be uncertainty somewhere - either in our language, or in our concepts we try to articulate or in the subject on which our concepts are based (reality). Heisenberg knew that. Assumptions must be made somehwere.

So, Metaphysician Undercover, are you arguing "against" me, or discussing "with" me?

Yes. Thats how language works. I could just say "the universe is the universe" or even more extreme a case just keep chanting "oneness" repeatedly in response to everything you say. But that wouldn't be informative would it - information of course being what i use the distinctions imbedded in language to get across. — Benj96

But this is not the same as the other. To say "the universe is the universe" is to repeat the same thing, as a statement of idenity, and this says nothing about the universe.. To say as you did, "The universe as a whole is a single thing", is to say something about the universe. But then what is said about the universe is necessarily something other than the universe itself.

You pointing out that my language breaks down into little itty bitty pieces that are all separate doesnt detract from the notion - my perspective that the universe is the "whole cake" and everything distinguishable within it is a fraction of that cake. — Benj96

The point is, that when you propose that the subject (energy), and the predicate (what energy does), are one and the same thing within the category called "the universe", you leave the thing that you are talking about, the universe as unintelligible due to the incoherency which you create with this proposition.

So again, i reiterate, we can go splitting things apart and examining them in isolation like energy and matter as completely seoarate things. Or we can unify them (as einsteins equation does) and approach a singular fundamental, discussing how they are two faces of the same proverbial coin. But it depends on whether you want to accord or discord with me, that will dictate whether the conversation moves forward fluidly or remains static and fixated on particulars. (the dynamic triad i mentioned early). — Benj96

As I explained, the things are already split apart, naturally. Your attempt to describe them as unified is unsupported by any real principles, so your proposition is in discordance with reality, therefore false.

But then what is said about the universe is necessarily something other than the universe itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Something said about another may be correct (ie opinion in alignment with what is) or it may be incorrect (opinion not reflecting what actually is). And what of it? What's your point.

The point is, that when you propose that the subject (energy), and the predicate (what energy does), are one and the same thing within the category called "the universe", you leave the thing that you are talking about, the universe as unintelligible due to the incoherency which you create with this proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I dont see incoherence in energy being a thing and that thing being what it does. I have no issue with action being a thing. Or "doing" being an existant phenomenon (a thing that is).

so your proposition is in discordance with reality, therefore false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is "discordance" not a phenomenon that exists in reality? If so, then discordance is one aspect of that which is true/exists - part of reality. I dont believe my views were discordant in the first place, but even if they are, they are not false in that they still exist.

Something said about another may be correct (ie opinion in alignment with what is) or it may be incorrect (opinion not reflecting what actually is). And what of it? What's your point. — Benj96

The point is that the thing, and what is said about the thing, or, what the thing is said to do, cannot be the same. this is evident in your example. "The universe", and "is a single thing", each mean something different.

I dont see incoherence in energy being a thing and that thing being what it does. I have no issue with action being a thing. Or "doing" being an existant phenomenon (a thing that is). — Benj96

If you still don't understand the difference, then so be it. I don't see how I can explain any further. The incoherency is due to the fallacy of equivocation which I explained to you earlier. If the word "energy" refers to a thing, and it also refers to what a thing is doing, then these are two distinct meanings of the word, as it is used as a noun in the one case, and as a verb in the other. To use the word as if the two meanings are interchangeable, or the same, as you propose, is the fallacy of equivocation. It is this fallacy which renders your perspective as incoherent.

The true source being the human brain according to you? A rather large assumption to make I believe. — Benj96

I find this comment puzzling. The true source being the neuroscience. Let's not re-invent the wheel. We have at our disposal a discipline that devoted countless hours to study and explain... the brain.

My suggestion (trying not to sound condescending or. dismissive here) is to really open your mind up to at least contemplating (for funzies) how consciousness could be more basic (time and space perception from matter experiencing energetic impulses/catalytic processes). — Benj96

I don't have a problem contemplating the basics. What I'm saying is, there's our source already. Trying to be creative is another thing -- which I think what you've been trying to do.

I find this comment puzzling. The true source being the neuroscience. Let's not re-invent the wheel. We have at our disposal a discipline that devoted countless hours to study and explain... the brain. — L'éléphant

First of all neuroscience isn't the source of consciousness. It's a discipline. The brain may be the organiser of conscious awareness in humans. Sure. I'm not reinventing the wheel here at all.

What im saying is not all life forms have human like brains, or any "brains" for that matter and yet are organised and complex enough to demonstrate awareness of their environment, behaviours and agency. And are likely conscious in their own unique experience, different to humans.

To make an assumption that the human brain is the only source of awareness in that case is a massive assumption. I believe it's likely that AI has the potential to also become agent/independent and have sense of self and personal autonomy in the near future, if it is not already underway.

Let us not be so closed off and egocentric to place humans in the center of the sphere of all that is conscious. We are one of many.

I hope you find this comment less puzzling than the previous.

. Trying to be creative is another thing -- which I think what you've been trying to do. — L'éléphant

All new ideas, innovations, inventions, concepts, theories and hypotheses are creative (alternative) when compared to previous pre-established understandings. That doesn't mean they're wrong or not useful. And it certainly doesn't mean they don't often replace the previous paradigm.

So maybe im being creative. What of it? That is the boundary between synthesis of new information and known information. In any case what I'm saying turns out not to actually be something new. Others share this opinion. You may not be aware of other understandings or propositions about the nature of consciousness but it doesn't mean they don't exist now does it? Haha

For me the brain is how consciousness complexifies. But that doesn't mean the brain is the source of it. It's the product of it. A reflection of its evolution and refinement.

If you still don't understand the difference, then so be it. I don't see how I can explain any further. The incoherency is due to the fallacy of equivocation which I explained to you earlier. If — Metaphysician Undercover

All you are saying is the language about something, and the actual thing, are not the same. Obviously. That's basic. What of it? It's not like I can demonstrate anything without communicating it (communication not equalling/being the subject of communication).

I actually already acknowledged that with the triad I highlighted previously. Perhaps re-read it again.

"If you still don't understand the difference, so be it."

All you are saying is the language about something, and the actual thing, are not the same. Obviously. That's basic. What of it? — Benj96

You keep insisting that the thing and what is said about the thing, are the same. Here:

I dont see incoherence in energy being a thing and that thing being what it does. — Benj96

What something does, is always what we say of the thing. It's how we interpret its relations to other things. The principle of relativity makes use of this fact, allowing that we can describe a thing's relations to others in multiple ways, none of which could be said to be the true way.

Since the thing is one, and what is said about the thing (what it does) is a multitude, they cannot be the same.

What something does, is always what we say of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is absurdity from where I'm coming from. We can speak of definitions (nouns) and actions (verbs) both. By the logic of what something does always being what we say of it, then if we say cats teleport then suddenly they do. Except of course what we say about something (either what it does or is) is independent of what that existant actually does or is.

Language Does. Not. Equal. Reality. It can only point at it and describe partial aspects of it.

It's how we interpret its relations to other things — Metaphysician Undercover

Except one needs to outline that energy is fundamentally all things and their relationships. So when speaking of one substance "in relationship" to itself - it's various potential forms/permutations, it is (all these things) and does (all the relationships between them).

My whole argument is while every material thing is A (is a thing) and does B (an action/behaviour or action), Potential Energy is "unique", an exception to other existants, in that it's very definition as an "is", an existant phenomenon or substance, is that it "does". It's action is it's definition. A basketballs action is not it's entire definition. A bar of chocolates action is not it's definition. But "action" itself (energy) "is" it's definition.

If this isn't coherent/making sense for you at this stage I think we can just agree to disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily but I think we are simply coming at the topic from completely opposite angles.

Like we are both looking at a 6 and a 9 on the floor and you're saying its 69 and I'm saying its 96.

This is absurdity from where I'm coming from. We can speak of definitions (nouns) and actions (verbs) both. By the logic of what something does always being what we say of it, then if we say cats teleport then suddenly they do. Except of course what we say about something (either what it does or is) is independent of what that existant actually does or is. — Benj96

Right, you are just demonstrating the difference I am talking about. Even the name of the thing is distinct from the thing itself. And that's why we cannot reduce all to one, as you propose. Even if we make the name a thing itself, and say something about it, what we say about it is not the same as the thing, and this would just lead to an infinite regress. So your proposal for unification would just produce an infinite regress which would render all of reality as unintelligible.

Except one needs to outline that energy is fundamentally all things and their relationships. — Benj96

This is an incorrect representation of "energy", which actually only refers to the relationships between things. Things themselves are said to have mass, which is not the same as energy, but is in some way equivalent by the formula expressed in the op, "E=mc2". Do you recognize the difference between "the same", as indicating the very same, or one and the same thing, and "equivalent", as indicating two distinct things which are equal according to some principle or principles?

If this isn't coherent/making sense for you at this stage I think we can just agree to disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily but I think we are simply coming at the topic from completely opposite angles. — Benj96

I've known since the beginning of this discussion that we could never agree, because you very quickly demonstrated that you are not averse to believing something which is incoherent. You seem to believe on principle, or on faith, rather than through understanding. There is this incoherent idea you have, that a thing and what that thing does, could be one and the same, and instead of understanding what that means, and how it is incoherent, you simply keep insisting on it.

First of all neuroscience isn't the source of consciousness. — Benj96

*Sigh*. Okay. I'm not interested in continuing. Thanks.