It was my reply to Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness. — Alkis Piskas

We're talking about sentience though, which is why i directly referenced sentience and it's constitution. I need not have used the Nagel line, it's just a great encapsulation. I'm really not understanding your frustration here... LOL

I suspect not. I do not suspect a vft is conscious. But I suspect it is filled with proto-consciousness. — Patterner

In the Chalmers/IIT type of sense?

What Is The Power of Absence? : Post 68
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html



You say:

I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. — Gnomon

Did you not write Post 68 that appears on your Enformationism blog?

Regarding your quote from Gregory Bateson:

It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon

Do you not recognize your above quote of Bateson as his definition of information?

I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog.

Thanks for the paper below:

The patterns which connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/sinding-larsen-the-patterns-which-connect.pdf

In the Chalmers/IIT type of sense? — AmadeusD

I don’t know what combination of the two has been suggested, but yes, I am thinking of a combination. I don’t think IIT explains consciousness by itself.

Otoh, if proto-consciousness gives anything like consciousness in the presence of only stimulus and response, without too much in the way of information, like if there is something it’s like to be a Venus Flytrap…. Well, whatever. Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours.

Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner

So, i'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what you mean, but taking a stab:

Yes, i would think if there are multiple systems interacting that would constitute a network, right? So that's just a more complex system which, to my mind, comports with the theory in the sense it would give rise to higher levels of consciousness.

Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner

Does consciousness have a sliding scale of lesser and greater? I think it's like an on/off switch. One is either conscious or not, although the things one is conscious of can be said to be "richer" or "fuller" than the things a bat is conscious of, although that might be wrong too. Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise?

Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise? — RogueAI

I think thats what's at stake

What's different between what we want to reconcile?
(mind and world, perception and the perceived, etc)

For one, introspective (self-referential) versus extrospective (extra-self, other).
When mind tries to understand itself, wouldn't we expect some sort of cognitive horizon or limit?

What's different between what we want to reconcile? — jorndoe

That which is tractable to objective measurement vs qualities of being ("qualia"), which are not.

Your hardcore scientific materialists say on account of this that said qualities of being must be somehow illusory or non-existent.

Check out this paper. Lends some scientific support.

I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. — Gnomon

I see. I know. That's why I said that it might take some time. But you don't need to do it perfectly.
Anyway, I brought up this little "experiment" to show that besides having a clear idea that consciousness is perception and experiencing --without any "additives" --like thinking and conceiving-- one can actually experience it. Indeed, I can't see a better way than this.

When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? — Gnomon

No. It isn't good for me. :smile: When you are on the verge of unconsciousness, it means you are semi-conscious. So we cannot speak of pure or full consciousness anymore. Othewise, semi-consciousness and even unconsiousness are still states of consciounsess, only that they are disordered, dysfunctional. It's like when a leg is broken: it is still a leg, only that it is dysfunctional.

How is it different from a Vegetative State? :smile: — Gnomon

It isn't! :grin:
But in a VS, if you are lucky, you can still hear and respond to some level! (As scientists say)

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . . — Gnomon

Brain scans reveal which 'vegetative' patients are alert, trapped in bodies

Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception? — Gnomon

Right. Kinesthesia is a good example. No conception.

Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? — Gnomon

I can't tell. If I were a Fly Trap I would. :grin:
Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ...

Thanks for bringing this up, anyway.

We're talking about sentience though, which is why i directly referenced sentience and it's constitution. I need not have used the Nagel line, it's just a great encapsulation. — AmadeusD

Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to @RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject. As if my whole message was based on or built around it.

I presented a good definition of "consciousness" and supported it quite well, I believe. I expected that at least it would be argued about. But not overshadowed by irrelevant and unimportant things.

You defined well from where consciousness comes from here: .

I think we have a problem just with defining how knowledge works... which in my view comes to the OP's point of no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth.

I think we have still a lot to understand in the basics as our understanding of things like causality is still quite mechanistic. This comes in a lot of examples where our models end up with a 'black box' where the issue consciousness happens.

You defined well from where consciousness comes from — ssu

OK, but I also said that the term was not used in the meaning is used meaning today. Which is what we are trying to define.

I think we have a problem just with defining how knowledge works — ssu

Certainly. Describing the mechanics of this kind of concepts is very hard and in some cases, like with consciousness, even impossible.

which in my view comes to the OP's point of no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth. — ssu

Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile:

I think we have still a lot to understand in the basics as our understanding of things like causality is still quite mechanistic. — ssu

I guess so. Interesting thought too. Causes can be often hidden or hard to trace or multiple.

This comes in a lot of examples where our models end up with a 'black box' where the issue consciousness happens. — ssu

It's true. A "black box": I liked that too. I think you are very successful with your similes! :up:

I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog. — ucarr

Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago. :smile:

So, i'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what you mean — AmadeusD

Primarily because it’s a half-baked idea that I haven’t figured out how to put into words. :D

Yes, i would think if there are multiple systems interacting that would constitute a network, right? So that's just a more complex system which, to my mind, comports with the theory in the sense it would give rise to higher levels of consciousness. — AmadeusD

Does consciousness have a sliding scale of lesser and greater? I think it's like an on/off switch. One is either conscious or not, although the things one is conscious of can be said to be "richer" or "fuller" than the things a bat is conscious of, although that might be wrong too. Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise? — RogueAI

I don’t know if I can separate my responses to you two. I think I’m addressing both. (And my apologies. I seem to have gone to some length.)

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is a property of matter called proto-consciousness. A mental property, rather than a physical. Here are some thoughts from that starting point.

1) Every particle has what Skrbina called “a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.” It amounts to nothing at the level of individual particles. A particle with proto-consciousness (if there is such a thing) would be indistinguishable from one without it (if there is such a thing). It’s just a building block.


2) A rock has... quite a few particles. All of which are experiencing their instantaneous memory-less moments. They are all experiencing the same thing, which isn't anything to write home about. There's nothing going on. Particles on the surface might experience more light, warmth, physical contact with things that are not part of the rock, and other things than particles in the interior are experiencing. But they aren't doing anything. There is no information processing. No processes of any kind. Not even any movement relative to each other. I suppose erosion is a process that the exterior experiences but the interior does not. But all in all, there's not enough going on to raise "instantaneous memory-less moments" up to something more.


3) This is from Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•​A sensor that responds to its environment
•​A doer that acts upon its environment

Some familiar examples of sensors that are part of your own mind include the photon-sensing rods and cones in your retina, the vibration-sensing hair cells in your ears, and the sourness-sensing taste buds on your tongue. A sensor interacts with a doer, which does something. A doer performs some action that impinges upon the world and thereby influences the body’s health and well-being. Common examples of doers include the twitchy muscle cells in your finger, the sweat-producing apocrine cells in your sweat glands, and the liquid-leaking serous cells in your tear ducts.

A mind, then, is defined by what it does rather than what it is. "Mind” is an action noun, like “tango,” “communication,” or “game.” A mind responds. A mind transforms. A mind acts. A mind adapts to the ceaseless assault of aimless chaos.

The simplest hypothetical mind would have one sensor and one doer. That's it. But I guess such a mind doesn't exist. (At least they can't find one.) The simplest existing mind is that of the archaea. It has two sensors (molecules of sensory rhodopsin) and two doers (flagella).

Archaea "is an example of a molecule mind, the first stage of thinking on our journey. All the thinking elements in molecule minds consist of individually identifiable molecules."

Archeae moves toward light. Compared to a rock, that's a significant thing. Different parts of the critter are doing different things. I'm not knowledgeable enough of definitions to know if this is considered information. The rhodospin changes its shape in different degrees of light, "which triggers a cascade of molecular activity that activates the" flagella. It isn't "trying" to move toward the light. It doesn't "know" it is doing so. There is no intent. Still, there is a good deal of stuff going on. Many particles are experiencing many different things. A big step up from a rock.

Is it all that different from a thermostat? Or a tiny machine that we might make that acts exactly like the archaea?


4) Journey of the Mind is a very cool book. It moves up several stages of mind-complexity. It compares things like the history of cities with consciousness. It speaks about Stephen Grossberg, who I had never heard of, but seems to be an amazing person. I would like to know more about the steps between the stages of complexity that are discussed, but I can understand the need to keep the book at a manageable size. The problem is, without those between steps, I'm not able to follow it. It seems pretty important to discuss, for example, the stages of development of neurons.

Regardless, I don't know at what point actual consciousness is present. Where is the point at which different kinds of activity being experienced within an entity in a proto-consciousness sense become a "what it's like" kind of consciousness? Nagel chose the bat because we literally cannot imagine what it's like to be a bat, experiencing the world through echolocation, flying and catching bugs while flying to eat. OTOH, it's a mammal like us, with a neo-cortex like us, so we might reasonably think it has subjective experience; that there is something it is like to be a bat. But when did that happen? How many different processes, and how many processes containing information, were needed for consciousness to exist? (I would say this question applies whether or not something like proto-consciousness exists.)

But I think information is essential. Proto-consciousness might experience any number of purely physical things without leading to consciousness. But information is not physical. It's not a physical property, like mass or charge. It's not a physical process, like movement or flight, which we can see depend on the physical properties like mass and charge. So proto-consciousness experiences something entirely different when it experiences systems built on information. And that non-physical property experiencing non-physical processes is consciousness.

That's my story, vague though it is, and I'm sticking with it.

Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject — Alkis Piskas

Not quite. I delineated sentience from consciousness (or that was my intention). Because your definition to my mind (and maybe RogueAIs) doesn’t rise to sentience and therefore there would be nothing it’s like to be a vft on that account. I can’t see the problem. The Nagel line was a useful way of outlining why I see a disconnect between conscious experience viz. sentience and consciousness per se. It was about what you’d said.

Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ... — Alkis Piskas

Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.

Shannon took a word originally associated with human ideas (information), and applied it to physical processes characterized by Uncertainty (ignorance) & Entropy (dissipation). As a pragmatic engineer, he omitted the idealistic mental/metaphysical aspect of Information, which is more like Certainty (knowledge) & Negentropy*2 (organization). His definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own.

In my thesis, I coined the term "Enformationism" to serve as an alternative to older philosophical concepts of Panpsychism, Spiritualism & Materialism. The made-up word "Enformy"*3, was imagined as a philosophical opposite of scientific Entropy : Negentropy. Enformy is a positive & constructive force in the world, while Entropy is negative & destructive. It's based on the notion that EnFormAction (energy + order) is a causal force, and one of its effects was to construct (via gradual evolution) computer-like meat-brains capable of Conscious functions and Self-Awareness. Those neologisms are not scientific or religious terms, but hypothetical philosophical postulations.

The human brain provides command & control functions for the human body. And "experience" (history + memory) is necessary for precise control in the self-interest of the holistic human system in an impersonal world . But, I wouldn't call that necessity "hard evidence" for a super-personal function, such as Cosmic Mind. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter. In other words, everything has consciousness.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are
Note --- my thesis is based on the notion that Consciousness did evolve from some a priori undeveloped Potential (seed) like mathematical Information (e.g. abstract geometrical relationships & ratios). Consciousness is the ability to interpret such abstract proportions into personal meaning. The unresolved question remains : who or what planted that seed?

*2. Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99336

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or causal 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.
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 preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- I call Enformy "preternatural" because the Energy & Laws of Nature logically must have preceded the Big Bang, in order to allow for complexifying Evolution instead of dissipative Devolution. I postulate no religious doctrines from that philosophical conjecture into the void of ignorance before the beginning of space-time.

Not quite. I delineated sentience from consciousness (or that was my intention). Because your definition to my mind (and maybe RogueAIs) doesn’t rise to sentience and therefore there would be nothing it’s like to be a vft on that account. I can’t see the problem. The Nagel line was a useful way of outlining why I see a disconnect between conscious experience viz. sentience and consciousness per se. It was about what you’d said. — AmadeusD

That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place?
Anyway, thanks for coming back with something that can be discussed about. :smile:

Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time.
Until then, let's see how Dictionary.com defines "sentient" (since "sentience" refers to it) as: "having the power of perception by the senses; conscious[/i]. Oxford Language Dictionary (used by Google) defines it as "able to perceive or feel things". And so on,
So, basically "sentience" is perception and, by extension, consiousness. And it applies fully to my expanded definition and my overall description of consciousness. In fact, I often use the word "sentient" myself, when I say e.g. "consiousness is a characteristic of sentient beings".

Does all this satisfy your query about "sentience?

Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. — Gnomon

You make a good point and I apologize for being unreasonable.

I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. — Gnomon

What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68

Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above?

What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr

I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. :joke:

I may-or-may-not-have also written a post on the strange notion of Morphogenesis, as postulated by rogue biologist Rupert Sheldrake, "to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields". Personally, I don't find that idea any weirder than spooky Quantum Field physics, which postulates a universal "field" (cosmic set) of abstract (metaphysical) mathematical information. :cool:

Form Fields :
Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain unproven until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
Note --- The language of Quantum Fields and Morphic Fields sound like New Age nonsense, until you look deeper into the reasoning underlying it. But, what does all this gobbledygook have to do with Consciousness?
"The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry information like radio waves." https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
"Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/658788/what-are-quantum-fields-made-up-of
"In quantum field theory, the universe's truly elementary entities are fields that fill all space. Particles are localized,resonant excitations of these fields,vibrating like springs in an infinite mattress." https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-physics-of-resonance-shapes-reality-20220126/

Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile: — Alkis Piskas

That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. Basic idea of the deterministic World where we can like Leibniz said, simply calculate everything!

The problem is of course that we are part of that universe and so is our model, that also has an impact on reality. Thus we cannot make an objective, computable model of that reality.

The problem that we use the models that we have, which obviously aren't so good. After all, if they would be, there wouldn't be any discussion even in this Forum. If there would be a clear answer, someone would just remind the questioner to read 1.0 logic or math or even a book about philosophy!

I think the reason is that our logic that we use assumes clear, yet consciousness (just as learning) is all about subjectivity. The subjective and subjectivity cannot be put into a objective, computational model or algorithm. That's why we end using the metaphor of a 'black box'.

I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. — Gnomon

I don't think there's any controversy here. I don't have any philosophical issues with the quoted section of Post 68. I asked if you wrote the quotation because thermo-dynamics, morpho-dynamics and teleo-dynamics are, by my understanding, cornerstones of Terrence W. Deacon's important book, "Incomplete Nature."

Deacon, being a neuro-anthropologist with a history of professorships at Harvard U, Boston U and UC Berkeley, makes me dis-inclined to jump to the conclusion he propounds controversial, fringe science.

I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties.

Even though you quote his three components, I can't tell for sure if you accept them as real and essential to information and sentience.

Also, I'd like to know if enformationism has major differences from Deacon's model.

You lost creatures need to sit down at your kitchen table, write down your best philosophy on a sheet of paper, crumple it up and throw it in the garbage...about 10 or 20 times...as an exercise. Seriously. Which of you is really taking this seriously. Raise your hand and say you got it right.

Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. — Gnomon

Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind.

It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. — Gnomon

Besides that I don't know what does P conceive the terms "conscious" and "consiousness", things tlike "it may be conscious" are not good for me. Let's go on ...

Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon

Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgable on the subject. But I'm willing to know about your thesis.

Also, I'm not good in Physics, not knowledgeable enough to examine things like Entropy, etc. In fact, I was never really interested about them in my life. The evidence of this is that I have never read a book of Physics just for fun or by interest. Well, except Capra's "The Tao of Physics". :smile:

His [Shannon's] definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own. — Gnomon

Why, are there "conscious machines"?
How can someone evaliuate such propositions when one cannot accept that matter is conscious in the first place? It's a "lost case", isn't it?

***

Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points.

[Re Where does the simile "no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth" refer to] That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. — ssu

Well, I undestood that in the first place. But what that has to do with the current topic, "Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?" Do you mean that the problem is about or has to do with going in circles or some kind of a vicious circle? Or maybe that scientists look at the subject of consciousness only from its surface, without being able to look "inside" it? The second one alludes also to the "black box" you are talking about.
Well, that can be the case too, but my undestanding of the problem is much simpler: they just look in the wrong place. Which is the brain. Because consciousness is not to be found in it. That's why I say that the HPoC does not actually exist. It's an illusory problem.

Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. — ssu

Nicely put.

The problem is of course that we are part of that universe and so is our model, that also has an impact on reality. Thus we cannot make an objective, computable model of that reality. — ssu

There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.)

The problem that we use the models that we have, which obviously aren't so good. After all, if they would be, there wouldn't be any discussion even in this Forum. — ssu

I agree.

If there would be a clear answer, someone would just remind the questioner to read 1.0 logic or math or even a book about philosophy! — ssu

:smile: No, it's certainly not textbook material. :smile:

I think the reason is that our logic that we use assumes clear, yet consciousness (just as learning) is all about subjectivity.The subjective and subjectivity cannot be put into a objective, computational model or algorithm. — ssu

Certainly. Tell that to scientists, esp. the neurophysicists and the neurobiologists.

That's why we end using the metaphor of a 'black box'. — ssu

:up:

Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". — Alkis Piskas

I have never heard of anyone why thinks a stone can have a mind. Here are a few quotes that give a more accurate idea of panpaychism.

In this article, Goff writes:

Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

In Panpsychism in the West, Skrbina writes:

Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.

There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.) — Alkis Piskas

I was thinking of the problem is the most simple way in mathematics. Usually our models are mathematical, so the simple model would be y=f(x) where the function, the algorithm, here is the thing that explains the change, right?

So basically what is said earlier that "all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future", would be as a mathematical model y=f(x) where the future is y, all the revelant information (of the past) is x and the all the laws of nature are f.

But then here the function also in the "world" and has an effect. Yet as Wittgenstein said in his Tractatus 3.333 "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself."

Certainly. Tell that to scientists, esp. the neurophysicists and the neurobiologists. — Alkis Piskas

Or even economists! Because even in economics this has reared it's ugly head. The problem is that when the aggregate of economics decisions of all players in the economy make is affected by the model itself that tries to explain there actions, where then is objectivity? You cannot have an economic model that says that people behaved this way because they believed this model itself. Why? Because...

You might argue that somewhat controllable feedback loop would erase this, but it actually doesn't. Only in some situations you can find a solution. But if the feedback loop is self-referrential and negative, there is no answer.

It just like try writing a sentence that you never will write. Are there such sentences? Definetly. Can you write them? Obviously not yourself. That's the power of negative self reference.

And lastly, I think it's obvious that self-reference plays a crucial part in consciousness.

I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties. — ucarr

Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.

I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy", but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. The excerpt below, from post 68, briefly summarizes how I viewed those "stages" at the time (2019). Each of the stages is a particular form of Causation (dynamics) with specific applications to Evolution. Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions.

For example, Thermodynamics is what we typically call Energy, which usually flows downhill, from Hot to Cold, and from Potential to Entropy. Morphodynamics focuses on the physical form (superficial shape or topology) of things that have been transformed from one configuration to another, or one species to another. The process of metamorphosis is guided by the constraints of natural Laws. On top of those low-level physical procedures, Teleodynamics focuses on the general & universal changes wrought by the advancement of Causation in the world --- including the Purposes of late-blooming humans.

The "teleo" prefix implies that an apparently purposeful process is aimed at some future state, as-if it is a computer program seeking an answer to Douglas Adam's computer-stumping riddle : "what is God, the Universe, and Everything?" That's a philosophical question, not suitable for digital computers, or even AI-chatbots.

The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind.

Regarding the long-delayed evolution of Self-Conscious beings, an associate of Deacon's, Jeremy Sherman wrote Neither Ghost Nor Machine : The emergence and nature of Selves. He expands on Deacon's hypothetical "AutoGens", as the missing link between physical and biological evolution. "Deacon suggests the autogen as a minimal Kantian Whole where the parts exist for and by means of the whole". So, you might add Holism (metaphysical system-building) to the list of dynamic powers of a maturing universe. :smile:




Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Life adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. The Life force is not a physical substance though ─ as some envision Spirit, Soul, Chi, Prana, or elan vital, but merely the process of recycling successful patterns of organization. So, what is the ultimate attractor4 toward which all change is directed?
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

I have never heard of anyone why thinks a stone can have a mind. — Patterner

What about a ball? Or a pencil? :smile:
"Stone" was just an example, Patterner. Any object would do. And surely you must have heard about matter having consciousness in a panpsychist context.

"Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality."(https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/)
Isn't "stone" an object, a thing?

But the problem with this is not whether objects can be considered as having a mind or consciousness, but, as (I think) I said, that P does not describe what it considers mind and consciousness to be, what do these things actually mean to it, at least not in my knowledge.
"Panpsychism does not necessarily attempt to define “mind” (although many panpsychists do this), nor
does it necessarily explain how mind relates to the objects that possess it." (Same source.)
So, we actually cannot make any kind of valid judgement about the panpsychist views, can we?

panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts. — Patterner

No one speaks about thoughts. Even in humans, this is another process, outside consciousness. If we speak about consciousness in objects, we have to ask simple: "Do objects perceive?" If we can prove they do, then all its fine and I will personally support Panpsychism. :simle:

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing — Patterner

Again, we don't speak about the quality or level of consciousness between humans and objects or even the differences between human and object consciousness. That would have a meaning if first, as I said above, it is proven that objects percieve, i.e. can be conscious, have any consiousness at all.

Maybe I miss some basic in all this. Which I don't think I do.
On the other hand, maybe there's an aspect of matter --e.g. at the level of quantum particles or fields-- that justifies the panpsychist vews that can be considered as "perception". Although I can't see how even this could change anything ...

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says: Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. — Patterner

I know he does. I also believe that he is responsible for the widely spread HPofC, which I have called eadlier in the discussion of this topic as an "illusionary" problem, since it doesn't really exist in terms of its description.

***

You have brought in the discussion quite a few experts. Good. But I would like better to hear about your own ideas and position on the subject.

Look all you need to do is hold the view that sounds most common sensical, make a few quips showing your indignation at the silliness that doesn’t represent the common sense view, and then walk way. Duh.

Well s’righty then. The common sense view as sun revolves around the Earth. There are only 3 dimensions. Stars are just points of light in the sky. Direct realism is true. Right right. Carry on!