so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. — AmadeusD

No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile:

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). — AmadeusD

I agree. S and C are two totally diffetent things; of a totally different nature. S is physical, whereas C is non-physical. But C depends on S to exist. C is a state and ability to perceive, which is done through our senses. That's why only sentient things can have C. That is, all living things.
As for "feelings", this word is loaded with so many meanings, that we better leave it out. Let's stick to "senses" and "sensing". They are enough for our purposes, I think.

A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD

Well, how can it perceive flies?
If you drug it --I don't know, with an injection and some special substance a botanist woul know-- would it be able to perceive the fily? Wouln't it be become "unconscious" in some way? Isn't this what happens with humans and animals too?

Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic."

If someone comes across a set of marks in the most fortuitous way and intuits that these marks contain a message or information, they cannot validate that intuition a priori. — JuanZu

Do you not agree that signal transmission involves the process of reduction of the improbability of the reiteration of the same signal again and again, and that the information conveyed by the signal is not only the intended communication conveyed by the signs, but also what's conveyed by the aforementioned reduction of improbability. This reduced improbability of randomization of a signal transmission (noise) creates an absence (of infinite other possible transmission content) that constrains signal transmission to a specific set of signs that therefore possesses meaning.

This multiplex configuration of signal transmission in terms of an absence coupled with a presence examples absential materialism.

In defense of your thesis (quoted at top) can you argue that the first-born sentient did not dream itself into an organized reality of signal transmission via absential constraint with attached meaning?

If the information is born from the a posteriori relationship, it must always be assumed a priori that there is a moment of uninformed reality (in the sense that there is no message hidden or stored somewhere). — JuanZu

As I read your above quote, I'm thinking maybe you're positing a rather pure form of idealism of the George Berkeley variety. My rationale for this interpretation: if reality has no inherent meaning apart from a perceiving sentient, then said reality, necessarily fabulist, must be dreamed into existence by said sentient.

One weakness of idealism might be its silence on the question of the informationalizability of reality, even at thermodynamic equilibrium.

Do you not agree that signal transmission involves the process of reduction of the improbability of the reiteration of the same signal again and again, and that the information conveyed by the signal is not only the intended communication conveyed by the signs, but also what's conveyed by the aforementioned reduction of improbability. This reduced improbability of randomization of a signal transmission (noise) creates an absence (of infinite other possible transmission content) that constrains signal transmission to a specific set of signs that therefore possesses meaning. — ucarr

What I am claiming is that a signal like that has no information, no matter how organized that signal is. I consider that Information and order are not the same thing. The information would arise when that signal is received and enters into relation with any environment that is constituted by a system of signs.

can you argue that the first-born sentient did not dream itself into an organized reality of signal transmission via absential constraint with attached meaning? — ucarr

I think you have misunderstood me. I never said that the physical elements, whether ordered or not, that precede the generation of information, can be something generated by the human imagination.

As I read your above quote, I'm thinking maybe you're positing a rather pure form of idealism of the George Berkeley variety. My rationale for this interpretation: if reality has no inherent meaning apart from a perceiving sentient, then said reality, necessarily fabulist, must be dreamed into existence by said sentient. — ucarr

I'm not saying that. I have said that information only exists to the extent that there are at least two sign systems in relation (and therefore when we believe we are in the presence of information, we are actually generating it from the relation between our sign system, [language, our memories, etc] and other sign system). They do not necessarily have to be sentient beings. It may even be the relation between the signal you mention above and a machine that transcribes that signal.

I was surprised by the comparison with Berkeley's philosophy. Since I believe that my position could not be further from Berkeley. Berkeley needed God's perception for the existence of things outside my mind (Can we say existence as information? I'm not quite sure). I, on the other hand, can maintain the "objectivity" of information without the need for God, I only need two systems of signs.

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. — Patterner

Sorry to butt-in here. But, the term "proto-consciousness" caught my eye. I assume you are defending Panpsychism from a Materialistic challenge. And I happen to agree with the general trend of what you're saying. Except that I express the concept of "proto-consciousness" in terms of Information theory, which I trace back to Plato's Theory of Forms*1. And I update the ancient notion of Panpsychism in terms of modern Quantum & Information theories. Both of which have added new terminology into the old controversies about the nature of Consciousness.

I can't encapsulate the complexities of my thesis in a single post. But I find a lot of parallels with your parry & thrust in my own defense of Enformationism. For example, I make a philosophical distinction between Real & Ideal ; Potential & Actual ; Mind & Matter ; and Perception & Conception in which all are aspects of our common world, but viewed from different perspectives : the physical eye, and the eye of the mind. For example, we can see Actual things with our perceptual (neural) systems, but we only imagine Potential possibilities with our conceptual (rational) systems. Causal & structural EnFormAction*2 (power to enform & power to know) underlies all of those aspects, including material and metaphysical. :smile:


*1. Protoconsciousness is a theory suggested by quantum physicist J.A. Wheeler, whose "it from bit" postulation inspired my own Enformationism thesis. However, I typically substitute the more general & abstract term "Information" in order to indicate that I'm talking about the essence of everything, not just human sentience. Panpsychism is most often criticized for implying that rocks are conscious. But Protoconsciousness could be used in an evolutionary sense to mean "not yet conscious".

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Energy or Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter, this causal principle equates Energy with Mind, by analogy with the Energy, Matter, Information Equivalence Principle.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy


DON'T STEP ON THAT SENTIENT STONE!

I only need to hear and discuss about another member'sown 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. — Alkis Piskas

Of course. This is basically an opinion-sharing forum. But it's different from a gossip forum like Twitter (X) in that opinionated people are expected to support their personal beliefs with public facts or plausible reasons. So, I provide both : a> my own ideas on a topic ; plus b> supporting information that you can read at your leisure. I typically provide a brief excerpt so you can decide if you want to waste time on that particular link. :smile:

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"? — Alkis Piskas

If you had looked at my thesis, you would know that it is intended to be "comprehensive", and inclusive of a variety of philosophical views. For example, Holism is an essential element of my worldview, and Taoism is very similar to my own Weltanschauung. But those non-reductive notions are often dismissed on this forum as New Age nonsense, or Eastern mysticism. I'm not a hippie or a mystic, but I give props to the ancient philosophies of the East, and non-Western societies. :nerd:

I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and yet we b) cannot make a direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious.

Even what is alive and what isn't is difficult to answer when you take (biological) viruses into question.

Again it's our own desire to make things to be what we want that is the main problem here.

Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr

Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". However, I think Deacon has already done a better job --- than I could ever do --- of modeling the something-nothing tapestry, in his Incomplete Nature book. :smile:

INTENTIONAL ACTION TRANSFORMS NOTHING INTO SOMETHING

↪Gnomon
I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's simply a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and b) no direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious. — ssu

Yes. Since the universe itself is still evolving, it and everything-in-it is an open-ended continuum. So, I doubt that Consciousness has reached its final form. The early stages of universal evolution were full of Potential, but little Actual. Protoconsciousness is simply another name for the Potential to evolve future states of Information Computation with enhanced Awareness. Besides, Consciousness is a process, not a thing ; emergent, not static. :smile:

No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Thank you; I appreciate that. At risk of sounding preening, it's actually pretty neat to come across good-faith disagreement and helpful responses when i make mistakes!

That's why only sentient things can have C. That is, all living things — Alkis Piskas

I doin't think all living things are sentient. All living things could be considered conscious, but i would say sentience is reserved for some benchmark higher up the organisational ladder that I don't know specifically.

Well, how can it perceive flies?
If you drug it --I don't know, with an injection and some special substance a botanist woul know-- would it be able to perceive the fily? Wouln't it be become "unconscious" in some way? Isn't this what happens with humans and animals too? — Alkis Piskas

Well, i don't know. That's an interesting proposition, but you'd have to work out whether the effect was 'mental' or physical. We can take anesthetics which alter our conscious experience, but act on some physical element of the body (i.e C-fibres no longer firing or some such). I guess you'd need to establish that the perceived the fly in the first place, as opposed to perceiving merely air pressure changes triggering non-choice-drive reactions in the body of the plant that result in the 'snapping out' at the fly (which is actually snapping at a non-consciously-recognised area of statistically significant difference in air pressure vs the 'background' air pressure)

For the VFT, if their behaviour is adjusted because, for argument sake, there are cilia on their surface which are now depressed by hte drug, and so not sensitive to changes in air pressure, that may change the behaviour of a VFT but does is have any cognitive effect? As i say, I don't know, but my guess would be not. I don't think a VFT has any sensation of 'hunting' and 'being unable to hunt' the way a human would, under similar experiment.

A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD
Well, how can it perceive flies? — Alkis Piskas

The Venus Fly Trap is a brainless living organism, so it seems to "sense" the intrusive fly via a mechanism similar in principle to a Mouse Trap. I'm not aware of any evidence that it forms a mental image of a potential juicy meal prior to springing the trap. It doesn't seem to be able to distinguish a nutritious fly from a dry leaf.

However, a fly is a sentient creature with a simple brain and constrained lifestyle, so its behavior is mostly automatic, with little need to imagine alternative scenarios. But a mouse, with a much more complex brain & behavior, does seem to be able to think & plan to some degree, and to learn from experience.

Yet, where do you draw the line between mechanical Sentience and imaginative Consciousness? My answer is that human-like Consciousness is a late-blooming emergence from 14B years of gradual evolution. It's an upward-trending continuum of information processing. :smile:

Fly Brain :
We therefore mapped the synaptic-resolution connectome of an entire insect brain (Drosophila larva) with rich behavior, including learning, value computation, and action selection, comprising 3016 neurons and 548,000 synapses
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330

I doin't think all living things are sentient. All living things could be considered conscious, but i would say sentience is reserved for some benchmark higher up the organisational ladder that I don't know specifically. — AmadeusD

I think that the terms "sentient" and "sentience" is misconceived by many here from what I could gather from this and other discussions (topics).
"Sentient" from Dictionary.com:
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. Characterized by sensation and consciousness.
Similar definitions are found in other dictionaries too.
So, we see C related directly to sentience, which is almost a synonym of "perception", since percetion is based on our senses.
As I have have postulated quite a few times in the past --and explained why-- that every living organism, even bacteria, receives stimuli from the environment and reacts to them. How could viruses travel in the organism and expand, if they didn't have an ability to perceive (be aware of) and respond to their surroundings?

Even plants --since they are our main subject here-- can perceive and thus are aware of their surroundings. Here's a good reference for more details:
"Plants possess a highly developed, conscious root brain that works much as ours does to analyze incoming data and generate sophisticated responses." (Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More - http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf)

[Re VFT's sentience proposed experiment]That's an interesting proposition, you'd have to work out whether the effect was 'mental' or physical. — AmadeusD

Good question. Now, if by "mental" we imply the existence of a mind, we canmot attribute such a thing to plants or even to bacteria. In fact, we have to make a lot of changes to the meaning of the term if we are to apply it even to animals, since the human mind is so complex and so rich in features and faculties, that as such it can't be applied to anything else but humans. Even reactions stemming from human instict can hardly be attributed to the human mind or consciousnes.
(On the other hand, and as a reminder, my basic definition of consiousness --the state and ability to perceive-- needs not to be changed in order to be applied to bacteria or plants, since it does not include or require the existence of a "mind".)

So to your question, my reply is that the effect would be only physical.

I guess you'd need to establish that the perceived the fly in the first place, as opposed to perceiving merely air pressure changes triggering non-choice-drive reactions in the body of the plant that result in the 'snapping out' at the fly (which is actually snapping at a non-consciously-recognised area of statistically significant difference in air pressure vs the 'background' air pressure) — AmadeusD

Good remark. Plants certainly do not have eyes that be used to perceive their surroundings. And I don't know what kind of sense(s) plants have, whether they can feel the water in their roots (when they are watered) or on their leaves (when they are sprayed on), whether the can feel the wind blowing on their leaves, etc. But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive, be aware of the flies flying near them or insects landing in their open mouths:

Above: Venus flytrap leaves, with their mouths and teeth!

And here, you can watch them in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eQKSf0LmY

For the VFT, if their behaviour is adjusted because, for argument sake, there are cilia on their surface which are now depressed by hte drug, and so not sensitive to changes in air pressure, that may change the behaviour of a VFT but does is have any cognitive effect? — AmadeusD

I see that you took the VFT proposed experiment seriously! :grin:
Well, a appreciate a lot a fruitful imagination like yours! :smile:
As for the possibility of a "cognitive effet", please allow me to say --well, it's too late for that!-- that cognition goes beyond perception; it refers to mental processes like memory, judgment, reasoning etc. So, I believe we can safely take this element out of the equation.

I don't think a VFT has any sensation of 'hunting' and 'being unable to hunt' the way a human would, under similar experiment. — AmadeusD

I don't think, either! :smile:

The Venus Fly Trap is a brainless living organism, so it seems to "sense" the intrusive fly via a mechanism similar in principle to a Mouse Trap. I'm not aware of any evidence that it forms a mental image of a potential juicy meal prior to springing the trap. It doesn't seem to be able to distinguish a nutritious fly from a dry leaf. — Gnomon

Quite interesting. This contributes a lot to the lack of knowledge I have about the kind of senses plants have and how do they work, which I was talking about to @AmadeusD a little while ago.
I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants.

But a mouse, with a much more complex brain & behavior, does seem to be able to think & plan to some degree, and to learn from experience. — Gnomon

Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process.

Yet, where do you draw the line between mechanical Sentience and imaginative Consciousness? My answer is that human-like Consciousness is a late-blooming emergence from 14B years of gradual evolution. It's an upward-trending continuum of information processing. :smile: — Gnomon

Not bad an idea. But I don't think you have to go that far back and examing 14B years to examine how C has been evolved. You can just examine how C evolves in a person, from his birth through to his death.
And if you want to be more precise, consciousness does not emerge or evolve. It doesn't change. It exists. It is just there. Or it is partially there (if one becomes semi-conscious). Or it isn't there (if one becomes unconscious). One's ability to perceive is attenuated. That's all.
So, it is perception and mind that evolve.

The difference between primitive with civilized people, as far as evolution is concerned, has been based mainly on learning as they were interacting with their environment. Very similar to what happens with a baby. Only that the stimuli, the elements that a person could interact with at that period of time were almost nothing compared to those existing today, in number and variety.

We therefore mapped the synaptic-resolution connectome of an entire insect brain (Drosophila larva) with rich behavior, including learning, value computation, and action selection, comprising 3016 neurons and 548,000 synapses — Gnomon

Thanks for the information and the reference.

my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". — Gnomon

...the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr

I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part.

I guess we're trying to visualize an evolutionary transition linking an antecedent dynamical species with a descendent dynamical species emergent from its predecessor.

“How Mind Emerged From Matter,” Deacon’s subtitle, suggests to me his belief matter is the ground of mind.

...my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, ...we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter.

The main point of our flow chart, as I see it, is to answer visually_structurally which component is ground and which is emergent property, or whether, as a third possibility, the interweave of the two components is essentially ambiguous.

I never said that the physical elements, whether ordered or not, that precede the generation of information, can be something generated by the human imagination. — JuanZu

I'm attempting to examine whether or not your statements thus far imply what you deny in the above quote.

What I am claiming is that a signal like that has no information, no matter how organized that signal is. I consider that Information and order are not the same thing. The information would arise when that signal is received and enters into relation with any environment that is constituted by a system of signs. — JuanZu

Your two statements highlighted above, taken together, as I understand them, assert that order and information are separate categories that have no intersection.

From this it follows that information is only passed from one sign-field to another sign-field.

Since order has no intersection (common ground) with information, there's the question whether organized nature, prior to the signing of sentient humans, entails dynamical processes that support signing before the advent of the human species. In short, the question asks whether organized nature sans humanity is a potentially language-bearing environment. Does pre-human nature possess language-bearing properties, albeit in latent form?

Also, there's the question whether pre-human nature includes dynamical information processes. Does it sound right to think that apes, for example, had no available information useful for their adaptation to the environment?

If pre-human nature possessed neither information nor language, then human, upon experiencing nature, could see only a jumbled confusion of chaotic, sensory signals from the senses to the brain.

The jumbled confusion of sensory signals would be perceived even if nature is organized if, as you say, an organized signal has no information. It is information that empowers a human observer to make sense of the abundance of sensory signals inputting to the brain every moment. We perceive signal input without information as noise.

The linguistic human brain, acting in tandem with information-bearing signals, assigns meaning to the inputting information via reiterative reduction of the improbability of reception of a specific set of inputting stimuli.

If pre-human, organized nature contains no information_language-bearing dynamical processes, then human, holding possession of such within itself, must generate an information_language-bearing dynamical process within its own brain in independence from the objective natural world. This is a process of daydreaming reality into existence as an information_language-bearing dynamical reality. This is an instance as mind as the ground of matter. This is Plato's transcendent realm of ideal things. This is Berkeley's Idealism.

Since order has no intersection (common ground) with information, there's the question whether organized nature, prior to the signing of sentient humans, entails dynamical processes that support signing before the advent of the human species. In short, the question asks whether organized nature sans humanity is a potentially language-bearing environment. Does pre-human nature possess language-bearing properties, albeit in latent form? — ucarr

If you want to make a generalization of the idea of language to apply it to physical processes [beyond human existence] I have no problem. In fact I'm doing the same thing, kinda, with the idea of meaning and sign system (because the nature of language and field-signs seems to exceed the field of subjectivity and, in fact, is an important component of its constitution). The difference is that we both have different ideas of how something called "information" takes place for a language, or for a sign system.


I claim that information is a relational property. To take an analogical example: if we have two people with a given height, and we compare them, we find that someone is taller and someone is shorter. "Taller" and "shorter" are properties that do not take place before the relation, in this case a comparison relation. I claim that information takes place or appears in a similar way between at least two sign systems.


So, for example, a footprint on the beach (a sign). In itself it does not have information; The information takes place once the human enters the scene. But not for being human with a mind, but for being a field-signs, just as you said. The information is then not an internal property of the foot print, nor internal to the human-sign-field. Information is produced, therefore, in the relation.

If pre-human, organized nature contains no information_language-bearing dynamical processes, then human, holding possession of such within itself — ucarr

Now we can eliminate the term "itself" or "intrinsic" (which refers to the Platonic essence), and replace it with "extrinsic." Furthermore, it is not correct to say "possesses" either. Instead it is necessary to say "produces in relation to".

This is a process of daydreaming reality into existence as an information_language-bearing dynamical reality. This is an instance as mind as the ground of matter. This is Plato's transcendent realm of ideal things. This is Berkeley's Idealism. — ucarr

Well, once we both can generalize the ideas of language and sign-field beyond human subjectivity, I don't see how Berkeley can have any place in the discussion. Plato, on the other hand, does have a lot to do with this topic. Since, although we can no longer speak of information as essence, or as something inherent that thing possess in itself, information still seems to be another plane or to be another dimension (as it ideally persists through different systems of signs or languages); A dimension that I think belongs to the topic of the virtual of external relations. But that's another topic. The important thing for me is to remove the Platonism of information as something intrinsic and essential.

I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part. — ucarr

I have a blog post that presents a sort of Mind/Matter evolution "flow chart" in the form of an emergent phase ladder*1. But it was not specifically based on Deacon's terminology. However, my multiple phases could conceivably be translated into Deacon's three powers : Thermodynamics (Causation), Morphodynamics (Change), and Teleodynamics (Control)*2. Each step in the ladder is associated with a few "emergent properties" or systems.

My single universal Dynamic (power of transformation) is EnFormAction, which combines Energy, Form-change, and Design (intention, purpose, constraint) into a single natural Force. Deacon's 3-in-1 nested chart is displayed below. :smile:

*1. Teleological Evolution :
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the classical physics rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of quantum-level "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even intentional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*2. A teleodynamic system consists of coupling two morphodynamic systems such that the self undermining quality of each is constrained by the other. Each system prevents the other from dissipating all of the energy available, and so long term organizational stability is obtained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter. — ucarr

I'm not sure what you mean by "ground" in this context. Something like "ground of being" (G*D)? Or maybe fundamental cause (Prime Mover). Or perhaps, essential Substance, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura. One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution.

From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution

Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post. :nerd:

Quite interesting. This contributes a lot to the lack of knowledge I have about the kind of senses plants have and how do they work, which I was talking about to AmadeusD a little while ago.
I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants. — Alkis Piskas

Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. Each "message" stimulates some functional response. However, human neurology is far more complex, so the "meaning" of those messages is more subtle & personal, yet generalizable to other contexts. :cool:

Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) and self-reference that makes human thought more meaningful, with more leverage over self and environment. And it's the ability to compare & contrast unreal abstract ideas, that makes Rational thought possible. :nerd:

For those of you who are proposing your own models of consciouness and information I have a stress test for you. Does your model account for energy and mass specific to the problem. To me it seems you disregard the physical realities.

On my side, brain state, as it supports consciouness and information does follow the laws of physical matter.

I was thinking about this because some of you...maybe ucarr and Gnomon... touched on mathematical equations a few days back maybe.

I think I may have used an equal sign a bit loosely a few times but should correct that to meaning physically equivalent but not mathematically equivalent.

The issue is brain state can be modeled as the physical equivalent of consciousness or information (as it exists physically) but not fully mathematically. Mental content is an either or proposition in that mental content could be one specific form or another and the physical brain, from a mass, energy perspective would not know the difference.

Also, if you would like to model the physical state mathematically, you should recognize that it's not a static state but dynamic. And you would need to use an iteration from moment to moment to moment to model energy expenditure, as an example.

Anyway, if you are new here, my advice is to completely ignore the Claude Shannon malarkey because it's a field that applies to electronic signals and not the mental worlds we are familiar with.

I think that the terms "sentient" and "sentience" is misconceived by many here from what I could gather from this and other discussions (topics) — Alkis Piskas

(the following applies to the remainder of that section of your post too).
That's fair. I guess I would stipulate the difference I outlined previously for two reason:
1. That seems to be what most philosophers of mind take to be the difference between the two; and
2. It makes it much easier to talk about awareness over consciousness (or, as a higher level of it).

So, in with your definitions in place it would be very hard to see how a fruitful conversation about hte difference between a human and plant viz. what type of perception constitutes whatever we want to call the 'human' level of consciousness vs a lower, plant-like level. I think sentience, as used to enumerate an actual rather than speculative self-awareness (something i really don't think a plant has) solves what would have been a linguistic problem.

Regarding the related link you gave to the Plant-Consciousness essay - I can't say much about it. It's not referenced, seems to make some pretty wild leaps:

"A bean plant, being fed upon by a spider mite, can
analyze from its saliva just what type of spider mite is feeding on it. It then will craft a specific
pheromone, releasing it from its leaf stomata as a volatile chemical into the air. That pheromone
will call to the plant the exact predator that feeds on that particular spider mite"

these appears to be inventions of hte author - we have no reason to think this isn't a mechanistic process the same way many of our autonomic processes occur. There's clearly no 'thought' in it. So, the contention isn't supported by the article itself. We also get sections like this:

"Depth analysis of plant consciousness since the turn of the (new) millennium is finding that their
brain capacity is much larger than previously supposed, that their neural systems are highly
developed—in many instances as much as that of humans, and that they make and
utilize neurotransmitters identical to our own."

These are almost all demonstrably untrue claims. Plants do not have brains, as a start point.

But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive — Alkis Piskas

I don't think this is the case. I think because of your broad use of 'sentient' you're importing a necessity that isn't present. A plant need not be 'aware' for it to mechanistically react to stimuli. If it could, in fact, choose how to react, then we get some infernce of analysis whcih would require some debate around feeling. I don't quite think the current explications can allow for that inference. I would also note that VFT do not know whether it's a fly. They also snap at fingers, large dust, small rocks etc.. etc.. It seems to be a triggering event, not a perception-driven event.

I see that you took the VFT proposed experiment seriously! :grin:
Well, a appreciate a lot a fruitful imagination like yours! — Alkis Piskas

Heh, that's definitely going to be my schtick until I'm a graduate student LOL.

So, I believe we can safely take this element out of the equation. — Alkis Piskas

Fair, and I agree. I suppose here, we're leaning toward that cognition isn't involved, so feeling can't follow. Unsure if that was your intention with this though!

I don't think, either! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

As above. I think this is nearly a fatal flaw in the theory that a VFT is sentient. But again, with your defintions in place, nothing we've discussed would lean one way or the other!! I just prefer the definitions i've used as they make a fairly good, albeit imprecise, heuristic for judging the mental faculties or one or other being.

I could add than any solution will be singular, not this endless procession of alternatives.

I am thinking that most of you approach this problem from from a ' don't know' perspective.

Don't reinvent the wheel. Just read what has been written.

For those of you who are proposing your own models of consciouness and information I have a stress test for you. Does your model account for energy and mass specific to the problem. To me it seems you disregard the physical realities. — Mark Nyquist

Have you not considered that, perhaps, some approach published on this topic covers what you mention, since these approaches are, kinda, ontological approaches?

Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — Gnomon

What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example?

even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. ... — Gnomon

I have studied and worked a lot and for quite long with mind, and of course thinking as part of it, both in theory and practice.
It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief).

It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) — Gnomon

Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.)

Mind, and thinking as part of it, is a subject one has to study a lot in order to have a good idea about its nature and functioning. And, if one wants to have a solid reality about it, one has to see how it works in practice, esp. work with it oneself.
(I'm not speaking about the "philosophy of the mind". I'm speaking about the mind itself, it's anatomy.)

I think sentience, as used to enumerate an actual rather than speculative self-awareness (something i really don't think a plant has) solves what would have been a linguistic problem. — AmadeusD

I guess you have a different definition of the term "sentient" than the ones I presented and what is commonly meant by them. Indeed, I don't know what does "self-awareness" have to do with it, even at a speculative way. It something way far from "sentience". It is not even sure even that there are animals that have this ability or can be in that state. And I believe no one can, since we cannot communicate with animals on a concept level to inform us on the subject and what themselves feel. There are even pople, from what I know, even in this place, that do not believe that such a state really exists or cannot identify it in themselves.

[Re: the Plant-Consciousness essay] I can't say much about it. It's not referenced, seems to make some pretty wild leaps — AmadeusD

OK, it was a ref that I found handy. You can chose youserf from among 150 million Google results for < perception of plants > (w/o quotes) or the 2.5 million results on < "perception of plants" > (w/ quotes). :smile:

[ But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive
— Alkis Piskas
I don't think this is the case. I think because of your broad use of 'sentient' you're importing a necessity that isn't present. A plant need not be 'aware' for it to mechanistically react to stimuli. — AmadeusD

(BTW, my saying "they must feel something" is very general and the wor "feel" in it has the meaning of "perceive" or "sense", not any emotional state.)
Now, you assert that a plant needs not to be aware of -- i.e. perceive-- anything n order to react to stimuli. How else can this work? Stimuli are always perceived. Even the totally mechanistic brain receives signals as stimuli. Which means that it can identify them, distinguish one from another. You can changes "perceive" with "receive" if you like, but this wouldn't change anything. And the brain reacts to those stimuli, since it works on a stimulus-response mechanism, So it is with the case of a plant. Only that plants do not have a brain. They have som other sensing mechanism, which, as I already said in this thread, is something I don't know. @Gnomon and youself know more about this subject.

If it could, in fact, choose how to react, then we get some infernce of analysis whcih would require some debate around feeling. — AmadeusD

It cannot "choose" how to react. Choosing involves free will or at least the existence of a mind, which are both absent in a plant. Besides, we have already that it reacts mechanically ...

[Re: About the VFT experiment (taken seriously)]that's definitely going to be my schtick until I'm a graduate student — AmadeusD

:grin:

I suppose here, we're leaning toward that cognition isn't involved, so feeling can't follow. Unsure if that was your intention with this though! — AmadeusD

No, it wasn't. I have said quite a few times in this thread :gasp: that cognition has nothing to do with consiousness, and thus with perception. And, I guess that by "feeling" here you refer to an emotional reaction, which is not our subject. Because "feeling" as a sense belongs to perception, which is our subject and can certainly not follow cognition. Right?

I just prefer the definitions i've used as they make a fairly good, albeit imprecise, heuristic for judging the mental faculties or one or other being. — AmadeusD

Be my guest! :smile:

I only would like to say that my definition of consiousness --esp. in its basic form-- has not been disproved by anyone until now.
It has been argued on, but mainly based on the concept of "perception", which I have also described and expleind in detail, and supported with examples. Or, it has been contrasted with other definitions, which however cannot be applied to all cases where the term "consciousness" is used.
The difference why it cannot be "overthrown" is very simple: It is based on an essential element of consciousess: perception. No one can deny this, at least not on sound grounds.

Here's once more my basic definition of consciousness: "The state and ability to perceive".

The challenge is still on! :smile:

For me something that takes the same form as consciouness is our 5 senses. They are all connected to the brain and the brain has full access. I think you will find a good consensuses on how these senses work. But if I move on to consciouness there is less consensus. And if I move on to information I get a lot of disagreement on the brain being the basis for information. Or there might be an acknowledging that brains process information but some would like information to exist in other places too.

If you want to make a generalization of the idea of language to apply it to physical processes [beyond human existence] I have no problem. In fact I'm doing the same thing, kinda
... The difference is that we both have different ideas of how something called "information" takes place for a language, or for a sign system. — JuanZu

As to the first part of your quote, regarding language applied to physical processes, as to that, I say, "language is physical."

How language is physical and what structure supports the physicality of language are two questions that have been under consideration and attacked in debate for at least the last two millennia.

I’ll venture an intuitive conjecture that we, too, have really been considering the physicality of language.

With “The Structure of the Physicality of Language” specified as our rubric, I think we have two important questions before us: 1) What’s the physical structure connecting signification with intelligibility and 2) What’s the physical relationship between information and meaning?

Aristotle has weighed in on the first question with his Agent Intellect concept. Per Aristotle, Agent Intellect is internal to human. It’s the necessary cognitive mechanism that detects the intelligibility of a sign. The physical structure, then, is the interface positioning Agent Intellect before sign, with intelligibility and its decoding as meaning an emergent property of Agent Intellect.

This configuration generates the interesting situation wherein subject/object are interwoven into a multi-part whole. The ambiguity of subject/object as discrete poles within this configuration accounts for much of the undecidability of the matter/mind debate.

It could be that the only resolution possible is the bias of individual character, as with the question whether the glass is half full or half empty.

I claim that information takes place... between at least two sign systems. — JuanZu

So, for example, a footprint on the beach (a sign). In itself it does not have information; The information takes place once the human enters the scene. — JuanZu

The information is then not an internal property of the foot print, nor internal to the human-sign-field. Information is produced, therefore, in the relation. — JuanZu

Your three above quotes, taken together, raise, by implication, the question: Where is the physical location of the relation?

Whether this relation is a physical phenomenon lies at the center of my purpose in my conduct of this inquiry.

Another critically important question asks: How is the physical relation produced?

I claim that a sign, as a discrete physical entity, possesses some type of information in the form of intelligibility. Moreover, I claim that this intelligibility is physical.

This claim seems to bog down in the quagmire attached to the following question: Are numbers invented or discovered? I argue that numbers, like other types of signs, are physical and therefore discovered rather than invented. If this were not the case, how could the animal kingdom, before advent of humans, have practiced adaptation to their various environments?

Since their successful adaptations prior to humans cannot be disputed per the evolutionary claim positing some of them as our direct forebears, if follows logically that successful species made intelligent use of various physical significations about their environments towards survival and reproduction.

For these reasons, I claim that information is ambiguously internal-and-external to both the physical signification and the physical Agent Intellect who decodes the information and meaning of the former.

The curious situation that we have in nature is one with physical language as an operator positioned between sign and Agent Intellect, with intelligibility and cognition interweaving an interface that is some kind of non-local physicality, a close relative of absential materialism.

One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution. — Gnomon

From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution

Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post. :nerd: — Gnomon

Let me start by asking a question pertaining to each of the fragments highlighted in bold italics.

Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal?

Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical?

Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction?

Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — Gnomon
What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas

I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :smile:

It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief). — Alkis Piskas

The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love:

Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings – ways of, as it were, thinking our way out of feelings – ways of finding solutions that meets the needs that lie behind the feelings. The feelings come first in both a hierarchical and a chronological sense
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/thinking-and-feeling-whats-the-difference

Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.) — Alkis Piskas

Human thought seems to be an evolutionary extension of animal "passions", but in it's ultimate form as Reason, is able to rise above base passions. As the ancient Stoics taught, the ability to think dispassionately is the primary advantage of humans over animals. We are simply animals who have "learned" to control & focus our inner motivations.

Most pre-verbal human concepts are imaginary & holistic, so must be analyzed into conventional expressions before exported in spoken or written words. The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance ; not in the sense of . :nerd:

The Dispassionate Life :
Epicurus can respond that on his understanding of ‘dispassionate,’ the natural sensitivity of the human being is still fully operational. It’s just that the Epicurean has a correct understanding of the world and realizes that there is no reason be disturbed by it.
https://modernstoicism.com/the-dispassionate-life-by-margaret-graver/

the partial and holistic effects in mental imagery generation :
Mental imagery generation is essential in the retrieval and storage of knowledge. Previous studies have indicated that the holistic properties of mental imagery generation can be evaluated more easily than the partial properties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997403/

What does being abstract mean?
Abstract is from a Latin word meaning "pulled away, detached," and the basic idea is of something detached from physical, or concrete, reality. It is frequently used of ideas, meaning that they don't have a clear applicability to real life,
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstract

Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal? — ucarr

Yes. I used the term metaphorically to indicate what Plato called Logos. I'm not referring to the Bible-god. It's an abstract concept, that we rationally infer from the teleonomy of evolution, but have no way of verifying empirically. :smile:

Logos :
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God."
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical? — ucarr

In my personal amateur thesis, the "bridge" is Generic Information (EnFormAction) : the power to create novel configurations of actualized Potential. Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler expressed the notion as "It from Bit", where It = material object, and Bit = immaterial Information (EFA). This is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2, where C (cosmic constant) is an irrational number that is now identified with Dark Energy : the expansive "force" inflating the universe. :nerd:

Cosmological constant The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction? — ucarr

Ha! The way you expressed that tripartite definition of EFA, sounds like the Christian Trinity : three different roles of eternal unitary deity, working in the multiform space-time world . But my notion of EFA is more like a computer program with three sub-routines that work together toward a final solution to the Programmer's question. Unfortunately, I don't know what that question was, but it seems to require the emergence of Intelligence and Self-Consciousness. Yet I suppose you could say that EFA (cosmic mind in action) is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter.

I wouldn't say that "matter_energy is coequal with {Cosmic} Mind" though. In the space-time world, matter & energy & mind are different forms of Generic Information, but subordinate to the eternal un-manifest Form/Logos. Since the existence & characteristics of an eternal entity (not deity) are beyond the scope of space-time reasoning, my metaphors should be taken with a grain of skeptical salt. :cool:

PS___ For those more inclined toward Materialism/Physicalism, the Cosmic Potential/Mind could be expressed metaphorically as an Eternal Multiverse, wherein Energy & Entropy are eternally recycling. To be clear, in my metaphor, EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination.