I'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/ Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. — Gnomon

Why being "not emotionally" against it? Isn't just "not against" it enough? :smile
The question I think is whether we can make a solid, well-grounded hypothesis about the matter being conscious. Be it in QM terms, as I said, or any other theory of Physics. Or even in terms of the structure of the brain. I wouldn't care what. Anything that could indicate that matter is conscious. Otherwise what does it serve as a way of undertanding how consciousness could exist in the material world?
Wel already have cartoons in which objects are not only conscious but also quite alive and even behave much like humans. :grin:

The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. — Gnomon

Most probably not. I hate Materialism. (Ooops! Here's myself feeling emotional about a philosophical system! :grin:)
Well, what could one expect from Materialism to tell us regarding consciousness? It's what its main supporters, scientists, esp. neuroscientists, say about it: that it is a product of and resides in the brain.
So, we can skip that too.

Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. — Gnomon

This is true. Only I wouldn't reduce Spiritualism to "divine". It holds that spirit exists separately from the body and that it is the only reality. But this is not new and it is not only Spiritualism that believes it, but a lot of philosophers, who hold, e.g. that consciousness is the only reality and that everything exists in it. And no one of them uses the term "Spiritualism" or even use the very common word "spirit". Most probably because they are both regarded with contempt. Yet, the word "spirit" refers actually to the "non-physical" part of a human, and "spiritual" to a "non-physical" nature, attributes, elements, etc. Things about which a lot of philosophers talk. See, that's why I avoid using "isms". They are connected with misconceptions and biases.

Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories. — Gnomon

This is an interesting concept and worldview. I only know a little about it.
And see, QM keep coming in my away all too often. Yet, I have never indulged in this subject either. But I have a feeling about it.

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time.

But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis ... — Gnomon

I see here some invalidation of personal views. Because in here we are all amateurs and it seems that our personal views are not good or enough. And why a professional or expert vew is necessarily better? Do you agree with all the philosophers or known personalities about what they say? Of course not. Most probably with only few of them. Isn't it true?

To argue that consciousness exceeds all possible physical description is not to argue in favor of an extrapolation of consciousness over the rest of what exists. That is, what I am asking for is a type of inference or deduction according to which an inanimate being would have any kind of consciousness.

Footprints mean feet, dinosaur footprints mean dinosaur feet. The Earth holds memory of the past as much as any brain. the information is there just as this post is here, but it is first in the writing, and later across the world in the reading that it becomes conscious. Or rather, a post is firstly a product of consciousness, and secondly an object of consciousness, or a content of consciousness. And to the extent that something of this is understood by another, we are 'of one mind'. This is called communication. There is a sameness produced when you see what I mean or I see what you mean. And, "where is this sameness or when is it?" are misleading, foolish questions.

I thought I knew me yesterday, because all knowledge is memory, but whoever writes this post is conscious, and that is not knowable, because it is presence, not the past. — unenlightened

Let's assume that you discover in a footprint on the beach that it was a person who made it. Now you have the information in your head, so to speak, of "a person made this footprint on the beach." How can something in your head be the cause of the footprint on the beach? It can't . For this reason, information cannot be confused with the cause of what we mistakenly say has information. In this case you cannot confuse the information "a person made this footprint on the beach" with the "objective" person who once made such a footprint. The information was born from your relation with the foot print, the relation of interpreter-interpreted.

The reasoning is this..
— Patterner

Totally agree with what you’re saying, but it seems to miss the point that it was intended to address, i.e. whether it makes any sense to say that ‘rocks have consciousness’. I for one think it doesn’t. — Wayfarer

I don't think rocks have consciousness. I think they may have proto-consciousness.

To argue that consciousness exceeds all possible physical description is not to argue in favor of an extrapolation of consciousness over the rest of what exists. That is, what I am asking for is a type of inference or deduction according to which an inanimate being would have any kind of consciousness. — JuanZu

If I understand you, I disagree with your premise. I believe you are insisting consciousness be explained by the physical. I believe it can't be, so I'm looking for something from which it can be built.

The information was born from your relation with the foot print, the relation of interpreter-interpreted. — JuanZu

I'm afraid I flatly disagree. The information is there in the sand, literally imprinted as a record of the shape of the foot that trod there. And this is the case whether I or another, or no one has a relation to it of seeing, interpreting, or knowing. The information is born of the relation of foot and sand, and only introjected by the interpretation of an observer.

Well, the only evidence of information you have is not the footprint, but something that you represent to yourself and assign more or less a truth value to. That is, information is the content that you have in your head (so to speak) and which you could transmit to another person. It is a representation (if that makes it clearer to you). But representation and what is represented are different things. So what you say is that there is representation before someone represents. Which makes no sense and proceeds according to a causal reversal. This is what happens with meaning: It is so ideal and quasi-universalized, making us believe that it extends into the past retroactively.

I'm stating the opposite. Most of the contents of consciousness cannot be described in physicalist terms. But it doesn't follow from this that inanimate objects possess consciousness (whether to a greater or lesser degree). It's a non-sequitur.

Well, the only evidence of information you have is not the footprint, but something that you represent to yourself and assign more or less a truth value to. That is, information is the content that you have in your head (so to speak) and which you could transmit to another person. — JuanZu

Yes you express very clearly what I disagree with. Information is not all in my head, but all in Google. Well not actually all in Google either, because I have faith that tomorrow another fossil will be dug up and some of the information it contains of a time before humans will be seen, interpreted and disseminated to interested parties, information that is new to humanity but millions of years old in reference. I have evidence that this has happened before, but no evidence, obviously, that it will happen again in the future.

Information that is in my head I tend to call knowledge, or habit, or superstition, or some such; not identical with all information, that can be found in books and timetables and DNA, and rock strata. I don't think this is a particularly obscure or idiosyncratic usage. Even the information that comes out of my head is not entirely in my head. I cannot remember exactly, even my last post in this thread, never mind the thousands of posts prior to that.

I'm stating the opposite. Most of the contents of consciousness cannot be described in physicalist terms. But it doesn't follow from this that inanimate objects possess consciousness (whether to a greater or lesser degree). It's a non-sequitur. — JuanZu

Ah. Ok. I am but an egg.

I believe it follows because macro-characteristics come about due to the specific micro-properties. The micro combine, and the result is the macro. That's true whether it's a simple matter of amount, like something getting taller as more is added; or an emergent physical property, like liquidity; or a physical process, like flight.

I do not see how physical micro-properties can combine to give something a non-physical macro characteristic. I think non-physical consciousness needs a non-physical micro-property as its ground.

The information is there in the sand, literally imprinted as a record of the shape of the foot that trod there. — unenlightened

The footprint can only become information if there is a mind that analyzes the footprint and interprets it a certain way, draws conclusions from it, attaches meaning to it. Without the mind, how can the footprint be anything other than a footprint?

Imagine an abacus falling through the air, the beads going this way and that. Is the abacus processing information? What about a computer running a simulation of a tornado with no one observing it? Is it still a simulation, or is it just pixels turning on and off?

Footprints mean feet, dinosaur footprints mean dinosaur feet. The Earth holds memory of the past as much as any brain. the information is there just as this post is here, but it is first in the writing, and later across the world in the reading that it becomes conscious. Or rather, a post is firstly a product of consciousness, and secondly an object of consciousness, or a content of consciousness. And to the extent that something of this is understood by another, we are 'of one mind'. This is called communication. There is a sameness produced when you see what I mean or I see what you mean. And, "where is this sameness or when is it?" are misleading, foolish questions.

I thought I knew me yesterday, because all knowledge is memory, but whoever writes this post is conscious, and that is not knowable, because it is presence, not the past. — unenlightened

Actually, you just have evidence of someone else interpreting something. That is to say, whenever we talk about information an interpreter will be necessary and you will not find any case of information exempt from an interpretation process. For example, a book is nothing more than an agglomeration of shapes and ink. For there to be reading and something to be read, you need a transcriber (interpreter, reader) who already has a language or a system of signs that can be related to the book. And what we say about a book, can be said about DNA, a hard drive, a USB memory, ETC.


Outside the scope of interpretation (or transcription) they are nothing more than marks, more or less ordered physical arrangements, like DNA sequences. Can we say that the color of a person's eyes is in the DNA sequence? No. that is imagining the future contained in the present in some mysterious way. What happens is that there is a whole network of systems that are transcribed and come into contact, where the DNA sequences acquire a function that produces specific effects on other systems, such as those of proteins; thus "eye color" is not found in the DNA sequences, but is given as an external relationship at the time of transcription.


That is, information can be understood as epigenetics. The same thing is said in spoken language: They are just structured sounds uttered by someone A, but if there is no relation with the sign system of a B, there is no communication or transmission (although we already know that nothing is actually transmitted). Information emerges through transcription from the outside in, or rather, as something never inherent/internal to the sign systems placed in relationship and contact.

Actually, — JuanZu

Actually, not. We disagree. Can you accept that in your ontology?

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time. — Alkis Piskas

Have you noticed that my posts usually have two or more parts? The first part is my abbreviated "personal view", and the second part is other people's views (often experts & professionals). If you're not interested in the views of those who are more qualified than yours truly, no one forces you to click on the links. The third part is to provide a path to deeper discussions and technical data. If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking.

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. Yet, they have no qualms about "spending valuable time" playing adolescent-fantasy video games. Others collect stamps or cabbage-patch dolls in their quest to "waste time" with little or no remuneration. To each his own.

Personally, the Enformationism thesis is not a save-the-world mission, or a save-my-soul religion ; It's more like a hobby that exercises my aging brain, and "wastes time" with ideas that pique my curiosity. The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain. If you are content with superficially sampling philosophical gossip, perhaps Twitter (X) is more your style. :cool:

The footprint can only become information if there is a mind — RogueAI

Literally not so.There are footprints millions of years old, from dinosaurs that predate humans. The print of the foot is literally preserved in what becomes rock and informs minds millions of years later. The mindless rock preserves the information until the curious ape evolves to think about it. The necessity of the curious ape so long after the event is patently absurd.

The mindless rock preserves the information until the curious ape evolves to think about it. — unenlightened

The mindless rock preserves the footprint. To go from footprint to information requires a mind.

How about my questions? Does a falling abacus process information? Do unobserved computers run simulations?

↪Gnomon

Of course I like to know what you say. I keep coming back. Things turn up here that I wouldn't think up on my own. — Mark Nyquist

I'm glad that my posts challenge you to consider ideas that may not have occurred to you independently. That's the basic purpose of this forum. :smile:

↪Wayfarer
Your brain is projecting "information" on DNA.
It'snot real. — Mark Nyquist

Speaking of challenges : You would be smart to consider what says about Information & Consciousness. He's one of the wisest & best-informed posters on this forum. Since his background in Philosophy is different from mine, I am often challenged to see the world from a different perspective. :nerd:

PS___ The genetic information in DNA chemistry is not real & physical, it's ideal & metaphysical. But its processing has real physical consequences, such as little hybrid clones of oneself and one's partner, with a life & mind of its own.

I'm not familiar with falling abacus, but mindless computers do process information all the time unobserved... and present the results to us at our convenience. Indeed modern computers process information in ways that humans do not fully understand, and programs develop abilities that are unexpected by programmers.

You make my life difficult, Patterner. :smile: Couldn't you give me just the link of that post? — Alkis Piskas

I usually do. But this one was only a scroll up several posts. Nevertheless, I will do better in the future.

Anyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating. — Alkis Piskas

I'm making your life difficult?? :D

But you are bringing up extrenal referenses there too (Skrbina, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, "Journey of the Mind" book). — Alkis Piskas

Indeed. I often quote others when they say something I agree with. I believe the more ways a thought is expressed, the more likely it is someone else will understand it. Something I think I've worded well doesn't always make it clear to someone else. Different wordings are often helpful.

But I just gave you a reference about that, the definition of "Panpsychism". Do you reject it, as well as all references with a similar description, on the ground that you have not heard any panpsychist say that any inanimate object has a mind? Or do you have another definition of P according to which objects are not conscious or do not have consciousness? — Alkis Piskas

My apologies, but I don't know which post of yours provides a specific definition. (Feel free to tell me how many posts upstream it can be found. :D) But, regardless, I have never seen a definition of panpsychism, or even consciousness, that I think is absolute. I may or may not agree with someone else's definition. If someone else's definition says all things, animate or inanimate, have a mind, I disagree. I do not consider what I am calling proto-consciousness to be a mind. I think a mind must have characteristics/abilities that proto-consciousness does not.

OK, but how can something physical have a property that is not physical, call it "mind" or whatever else?
I believe you start with a hypothesis that cannot stand, it's not grounded. You are trying to build a theory on the air or from air. Anyway. — Alkis Piskas

A couple possibilities come to mind. First, a solid building may contain running, or a pool of, water. So just because it's solid doesn't mean every aspect of it is solid. Likewise, physical things may have non-physical aspects.

Second, calling particles "physical" is problematic. When we call a particle "physical," we are only referring to its physical properties. We are not referring to the particle itself. I don't even know if it is known whether or not there is a difference. Is an electron a thing that has a negative charge. Or is an electron the negative charge itself? Either way. we don't know what those properties actually are. In Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe, Brian Greene writes:

If you’re wondering what proto-consciousness really is or how it’s infused into a particle, your curiosity is laudable, but your questions are beyond what Chalmers or anyone else can answer. Despite that, it is helpful to see these questions in context. If you asked me similar questions about mass or electric charge, you would likely go away just as unsatisfied. I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. In the same vein, perhaps researchers will be unable to delineate what proto-consciousness is and yet be successful in developing a theory of what it does—how it produces and responds to consciousness. For gravitational and electromagnetic influences, any concern that substituting action and response for an intrinsic definition amounts to an intellectual sleight of hand is, for most researchers, alleviated by the spectacularly accurate predictions we can extract from our mathematical theories of these two forces. Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t.

Greene emphasizes the words "I don't know" in the two sentences.

I do not think we are nearly certain enough of things to say, "This is physical, and it can only have physical properties."

Re "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.":
Now, you doubt about your basic assumption, i.e. the existence of something you have initially postulated as existing. — Alkis Piskas

No, it's not doubt. I'm saying that, either way, we couldn't tell the difference. If there is no proto-consciousness, then particles do not have any degree of subjective experience. If one somehow did, it would be indistinguishable from the rest. And vice-versa. At the level of one particle, there's no outward measure that could tell us which is which.

And what do you mean by a "building block"? Is that something physical or non-physical? Is the particle with proto-consciousness such "building block"? — Alkis Piskas

It's an expression. A Lego is a building block. An atom is a building block. A single singer is a building block of a chorus. a tree is a building block of a forest. Proto-consciousness is the building block of consciousness.

Yes, a particle with proto-consciousness is a building block. In at least two possible ways. One way is that their physical properties combine to form solids, liquids, and gasses. And, if I'm right, their property of proto-consciousness combines to give some of those solid objects (us, for example) consciousness.

Re "A rock has... quite a few particles. All of which are experiencing their instantaneous memory-less moments.":
What do you mean by "memory-less moments"? I suppose you are implicitly, silently adding another hypothesis or postulate, which is the existence of something called "memory-less moments" and which is experienced by particles. That is, you postulate that particles have a memory but there are moments that this is absent. Like a person who suffers from amnesia after a hard blow on the head. Right? — Alkis Piskas

Not Right. That's one of the quotes you removed. In this case, Skrbina's. That's why I had it in quotes. It is part of the whole hypothesis of proto-consciousness. Particles do not have memory. Their subjective experience is of "instantaneous memory-less moments."

Re "all in all, there's not enough going on to raise "instantaneous memory-less moments" up to something more.":
How is "instantaneous memory-less moments" raised? — Alkis Piskas

The idea is that the proto-consciousness of all the particles of an entity in which enough different things are happening, particularly (according to my hypothesis) processes involving information, actual consciousness comes about. The potential of what I might call the "raw material" is realized.

I believe, the whole scheme lacks something very basic: A definition or description of "memory" in the context or level of a particle. That is, what does memotry mean for a particle? What kind of "memory" do particles have? Do you see what I mean? — Alkis Piskas

Hopefully, I have made clear that I am not positing any sort of memory in regards to particles. Their subjective experiences are memory-less. I believe Skrbina used, and I am definitely using, that wording so people won't think there is any memory at the level of particles.

So you have evidence of the existence of information that precedes interpretation (the relationship between sign systems)?

Show me any. You will see that there is always a process of translation, interpretation, transcription, etc. that generates it.

No. I see that my seeing anything requires me. But my finitude and mortality entails that information does not depend on my knowing it

I don't think you calling my view 'brain-mind identity theory' is actually my position. I just like to start with physicalism/materialism because it keeps us /me personally from believing things that just aren't true. Physical brains give us the abilities we have, but given this capability, what we entertain as mental content really has few limits.

As for information in DNA, that is your burden to defend. I think it's just your mental projection. It might be an abstraction but not physically fundamental as brain state is.

As for information in DNA, that is your burden to defend. I think it's just your mental projection. It might be an abstraction but not physically fundamental as brain state is. — Mark Nyquist

My position on DNA is that it used to work just fine even before that woman discovered it and some blokes stole her idea and got the Nobel prize for it.

I'll look into that...what you can learn here.

I just like to start with physicalism/materialism because it keeps us /me personally from believing things that just aren't true. — Mark Nyquist

And you know they're 'not true' because.....

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rosalind-franklin-a-crucial-contribution-6538012/

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Shortly after our dialog in this thread, on the distinction between "Perception" & "Conception", I came across the Quora article linked below*1. The author takes an "enactivist approach" to such contentious questions. I was not previously aware of that particular philosophy of Consciousness, but it may agree with my thesis in principle, if not in detail. Enactivism seems to be an attempt to bypass the implicit Dualism of the notion that they are two incompatible entities, as in Brain/Mind and Body/Soul or Oil & Water doctrines, while avoiding the implication problems of Panpsychism.

Enformationism is monistic, but in a different sense. It says that physical Perception and mental (metaphysical) Conception are merely different forms of the same universal substance/essence : Generic Information (power to enform ; programmed causation/energy). The Quora article doesn't mention Holism specifically, but that is how I unify two apparently isolated things, that are integral parts of the same system.

If you are not inclined to click on an external reference, stay tuned. As I become more familiar with Enactivism*2, I may eventually offer my personal opinion on the notion that Perception and Conception are merely two phases of the same thing, that we know via different channels : a> neural senses or b> sixth sense of Reason/Inference. For now, all I can say is that I agree with the monistic conclusion. :smile:



*1. What is the difference between conception & perception? :
The question is essentially dualistic, that is, it implies the two are implicitly divided, are different; a case of body and mind dualistic reductionism.
www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-conception-perception/answer/Geoff-Lawson-4
Note --- The author seems to dismiss the traditional dualism as a linguistic quirk. But I think our common languages may reflect important philosophical discriminations made over the years by important thinkers.

*2. Enactivism rejects mainstream conceptions of mind that strongly demarcate minds from bodies and environments. It holds that such conceptions are not justified and should be rethought. Enactivism aims to eradicate misleading dualisms that continue to dominate analytic philosophy of mind and much cognitive science. It aims to dissolve the mind-body problem by asking us to abandon our attachment to traditional dichotomies and to come to see that minds are not ultimately separate from bodies, environments, or others.
https://iep.utm.edu/enactivism/

That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place? — Alkis Piskas

It was my intention (as noted, right there) - I'm just not yet that good at writing what I think. This has, and i imagine, will lead to many weird disagreements that don't actually exist between myself an other posters so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. I think it'll be an issue for some time, given my wet-behind-the-earsness.

Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time — Alkis Piskas

My understanding of sentience is that it is held universally apart from consciousness in that it requires the further fact of 'feeling'. Subjective experience+feeling (hedonic).

In this way, I have no problem talking about the two separately. A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness.

If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking. — Gnomon

Certainly. But my comment was certainly not meant to invalidate your references. I never said or hold in general that references are useless. That would be totally silly. And I often consult them. Only that in some subjects, e.g. related to consciousness and mind, about which I have read and listened to tons of descriptions and views, and which I know very well --I have worked with and on mind for years-- I only need to hear and discuss about another member's own opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. So, I prefer spend my time in fruitful exchanges with other people. Besides, I believe this is the main purpose of TPF. Reading and discussing books, references and articles is also included of course, but I consider it of secondary importance. I may be wrong, I don't know. Maybe it's only what I expect from it ...

BTW, since you are talking about "experts" -- on the field, have you ever considered to know about what philosophers of the East have to say about consiousness and the mind? We are living in the Western culture, being fed with Western philosophical values in all our life, and we forget that there are other views about crucial philosophical issues in the other part of the world. I have escaped from that trap a lot lot time ago, by studying Eastern philosophy in parallel with the Western one. Only in this way one can have an "expanded view of the topic" that you say. Otherwise, one;s view is restricted.
How expanding can my view be if I'm looking with one eye only?

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. — Gnomon

You are right. Esp. because it certainly applies to me. "smile:
But think about this: When a TPF member launches a discussion, is it usually with a purpose in mind to know what other, the "experts" have to say about te topic, the subject? If the one needed that, one could simply "ask" the Web or read books. But you cannot discuss with the Web or books, can you?
So, the OP obviously asks for the opinion from others, something which the OP often expresses explicitly at the end of their message. And this is more evident when the OPs describe their own position on the subject. And in the majority of the cases, without any reference to external sources.

quote="Gnomon;860132"]The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain.[/quote]
I know. But if you want to build a comprehensive worldview, don't you think it's a good idea to leave for a while the "West" space within which your philosophical quest is usually confined, as large as that space may be, and look also to the "East"? If not for anything else, but just for things to pique your curiosity? Although, I'm certain that doing that, you will read and hear things that will not only satisfy your curiosity, but will open for you new doors in the world of philosophy.

Note: My views on mind and consciousness, as on a lot of other subjects discussed in this place and elsewhere, are not based on Eastern philosophy, but they are certainlly infuenced by it. They are products of my "expanded" worldview, which will continue to expand, as long as I am able to think effectively and evolve as a human being.

Anyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating.
— Alkis Piskas
I'm making your life difficult??:grin: — Patterner

"grin" It may sound difficult but my "filtering" is an automatic process: it means just ignoring external refs, thus actually simplifying things. "smile:

Indeed. I often quote others when they say something I agree with. I believe the more ways a thought is expressed, the more likely it is someone else will understand it. — Patterner

I'm not sure about that. If the external source talks about concepts and theories and has no practical value, it might even be worse as far as undersnading is concerned. As I see it, if one wants to make one's points clear and well understood, one must off practical values for them, how they are applied to reality and life, things with which one can identify, recognize as actually existing or happening or functioning, etc. And this can be achieved mainly through practical examples.

I don't know which post of yours provides a specific definition. — Patterner

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859927
"Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality."(https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/)

I have never seen a definition of panpsychism, or even consciousness, that I think is absolute. — Patterner

Of course, there are no absolute definitions for anything. One has to look in the various definitions what is the central element, point or characteristic. In the case of Panpsychism, this is that "matter posseses a mind" . In some others, it's that "matter is conscious", and so on.

If someone else's definition says all things, animate or inanimate, have a mind, I disagree. I do not consider what I am calling proto-consciousness to be a mind. — Patterner

OK. So, you have your own definition of P, connected to the idea of "proto-consciousness". But you must realize that it is not what traditional P and panpsychists believe. (I just googled "proto-consciousness" and I found seome special references about it. I might.)
Otherwise, I fully accept and welcome your views on the subject. In fact, I thank you for bringing up a totally new subject for me! (I'll learn more about it in time.)

I think a mind must have characteristics/abilities that proto-consciousness does not. — Patterner

Most probably, but I can't really tell, since I don't know enough about proto-consciousness.
What I can tell though, is that mind and consciousness are totally different and separate things.

Second, calling particles "physical" is problematic. When we call a particle "physical," we are only referring to its physical properties. ... — Patterner

I really appreciate your endeavor in describing your theory. However, I can't follow it, since you are walking on hill and I my lungs and feet don't help me any more to accompany you. :smile:
a ground that I a terra incognita for me! :smile:

I'm really sorry about this, because how she a very strong willingnes and tenacity on this trip.
I hope at least that someone else in here will take advantage of your messages to me and discuss the subject with you in a much better way than myself.

I am not discussing a certain ideality of information, which is the same ideality of meaning. I'm discussing the ontological status of information, in the sense of "how something like information is mysteriously contained in a footprint, and jumps from there into our thinking." Stating that it is "contained" is invalid from the moment the process of its production in the relation is evident. The information is not contained, but is produced in the correlation [interpreter/interpreted], [representant/represented], [translator/translated], [transcriber/ transcribed]. I.E in the relation between sign systems.