It takes some work to explain this and I'm working at it. So non-physicals can't exist (that's my philosophical opinion) but mental content of things that are physically non-existent can exist. Since the term 'non-physical' is in use, I might sometimes use it but (technically, analytically) it is mental content of things that are physically non-existent.
I start with physical brain state that I identify as entirely physical matter. Any expansion on that state is equivalent, just with more details.

I have the view that signifIcantly more is going on. If you expand brain state to BRAIN(mental content) and further expand to BRAIN(content representing physical matter) and BRAIN(content representing things that are physically non-existent) and further expand to BRAIN(specific mental content) then you may at some point realize *** B O O M *** that brain content representing the non-physical can control physical matter.

You can’t fully quantify brain information. — Possibility

I agree, in practice we cannot.
We can define brain information as physical brain state. It's completely different than Claude Shannon information theory but is information as we know it.

My method was a guess based on some known rates. For example typing rate is evidence of a rate and content.

Human DNA has about 875mb of data, or 100 odd volumes of Encyclopedia Brittanicas worth. — Pop

This is what I thought was significant - data is ones and zeros but mental content is fully formed ideas that are interconnected with the environment and dynamic.
What we take in visually if converted to pixels would be an enormous amount of data but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm just trying to get some number range of information (as distinct items) in our brains as we use it. So I'm trying to get you to see the difference between data and brain information.

I was trying to think of something new about information that hasn't been covered and I remember doing a rough calculation of how many 'items of information' our brains process in a day.
I used published reading, speaking and typing rates as a basis but really my guess was 20000 to 80000 items per day. Maybe 20000 would be a slow day and 80000 would be a high stress day. I think these are in the ballpark numbers, you may have other ideas, but they seem to be large enough to accompish most tasks we may want to do. Of course this would be 20000 to 80000 items with specific information content so it's not analogous to bits or computer code. Any comments, suggestions or corrections?

Hi Pop. I was thinking a week ago that this thread was reaching a point of exhaustion. That's not the case. Sometimes I check a few times a day but eventually something new comes up or you or the commenters go deep on something. That's interesting... I like it.
The physics stuff is beyond me (and most of us because of the math) so sometimes I just try to follow the discussion. Not sure of the Mass = Energy = Information model though. I think you could do a model of everything with just energy - except where does the energy come from?

How we represent it is irrelevant to what it is. — Kenosha Kid

Then I agree.

I would give the choice of construct or physical matter like this:

1) BRAIN(mental content) or BRAIN(information as a mathematical construct) or
BRAIN(wavefunction as a mathematical construct)
2) Information is physical matter.
3) something else.

It's quippy, but it's wrong as Pop pointed out. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure what your reference is to. So wavefunction is total information about a system. Is information then a mathematical construct or a physical reality?

I googled 'physicists definition of information'.

What is information? - Physics Stack Exchangehttps://physics.stackexchange.com › questions › what-is...
Jan 23, 2016 — information contained in a physical system = the number of yes/no questions you need to get answered to fully specify the system. https://physics.stackexchange.

I don't think this means information resides in the physical system but is used by the observer to measure the physical system.
Other definitions came up but this is the one I agree with.

Information can be simply defined as the opposite of a blank sheet of paper minus the writing on it[/b]

So: ( paper - writing )opposite = information. or Paper + writing = information — Pop

Another view is:
Paper is physical matter.
Ink is physical matter.
So paper and ink (the combination) is physical matter.

Information (brain states) is encoded to paper and ink (because it's cheap and relatively stable) and decoded by yourself or others (by convention) - an attempt to transfer brain states.

Might have missed a lot. Like in school I missed subtraction using the Venn diagram method.

I have been processing some of the references offered here, and the article ‘What is information?’ from Christophe Adami caught my attention - in particular a Venn diagram showing information as ‘what you don’t know (entropy) minus what remains to be known given what you know’. — Possibility

What you don't know- that's a strange way to define a set. Ok, it's an unknown set.
What remains to be known given what you know- that's even worse! How did this get published? It's junk.

Ok.

I understand his work was communication theory.

Harry Nyquist preceded Claude Shannon in his work.

If you are referring to neural corralates I would stick with brain states unless they mean exactly the same thing.

Sorry, no.

The way I was thinking of it (but didn't explain) is brain state would be only the basic minimum physical elements and configuration necessary to contain a specific mental content.

For the equal signs to make sense you should look at it backwards. The specific mental content is evidence your brain state has the ability to contain this specific content.
I'm assuming a fully intact organism to support the brain. And it's bad manners to edit or embellish a quote.

Just saying it's something to consider. It's my approach and I've already commented.
I've never been a monist or a dualist because I think they are both wrong. What I do like is starting with physical monism and doing an expansion to a dualist form and a further expansion to specific mental content. Such as:

Brain state = BRAIN(mental content) = BRAIN(my birthday is XX-XX-XXXX)

Not bragging, just showing how I do it.

It helps. The thread is getting so long I forget who made what comments.

Does anyone see the logic of studying, understanding and defining brain based information first? It's an order of analysis issue. Brains are the tools we use to sort these things.
Most of these models can't explain how we remember our own birthdays.

First Form of Information — Gnomon

Gnomon calls it First Form of Information so I'm not the only one thinking about it.

interaction = x - (form, change)
form = x - (interaction, change)
change = x - (form, interaction)
Where x is information. — Possibility

I'm not getting this. Change would be form(1)--->form(2), or f(2) - f(1), right? Is this supposed to be tied to something in the physical world? Can it be multi-dimentional? Does it handle the 'non-physical'? Can you give physical and non-physical examples to show that it works. Maybe something like process notation would work better. Does interaction imply brain presence or not?

Pop and I go way back...like three months of fighting.

I don't always agree with Pop except by randon chance.

Neurobiological states don't represent anything — Wayfarer

I see this (brain states) as the frontrunner of what information could be. Pattern and form just don't cut it. If you need to deal with the complexity that manifests, go right to the brain itself.
And back to your puzzling on the non-physicalness of 'encoded information'. The thing you are referring to is (encoded) physical matter and the process and our choice of encoding methods should leave no doubt that physical matter only is sufficient to communicate.

Is 'information' physical?
Unless you are a dualist, the question seems moot. Only a dualist would classify things as physical/not-physical.

To an anti-realist, information is not physical because NOTHING IS.

To a physicalist, information is physical because EVERYTHING IS.

Is the implication then that we are all actually dualists? Or is something else meant by "physical" in this context?

And then there is the question of the meaning of the term "information". I would argue that a poor choice has been made by physicists in adopting the word "information" to describe quantum states. Like using "real" and "imaginary" to describe numbers in math, the term "information" has too strong of a colloquial usage (i.e., tied to the mental activity of interpreting symbols - or of a mind choosing to assign a meaning to an observed thing). Back at the beginning of the discussion, Bitter Crank asked if DNA is information. Well, DNA is a complex physical arrangement of genes that a particular system can react to, but calling it "information" might imply that the system is conscious and assigns meaning to the DNA. So the question of whether information is physical or not might hinge on whether you believe consciousness is physical or not.
4 years ago By Lucifer Sam

This is copy and paste from four years ago...Wayfarer thread

delete

I'm into your monster thread. Really interesting. Four years ago and a bunch of the commenters are around now. Understanding your view better from the OP.

Yes, monster thread. 48 pages. I was wondering about that so thanks for the link. I'll take a look. Thanks.
Your grammer is fine. I think you wrote what you meant.

I don't accept that ideas or sentences or the like are 'brain states' or can be understood in those terms — Wayfarer

So what's the starting point for encoding and are you using the correct grammar when you write 'encoded information'. I read encoded as a modifier.

and the information content would be represented by the amount of change in the neural state. — Pop

I like this. Good point. I think you are saying input or a message sent may not be fully received.

Or encode the same information in completely different material forms. I had a monster thread on that some time back. — Wayfarer

Are we encoding information or are we encoding matter?
If I start with a brain state(information) and wish to communicate that brain state to person(2) the process looks like this:
Person(1) INFORMATION--->Encode matter,send-->PHYSICAL MATTER--->Person(2)Receive, Decode matter--->INFORMATION transfered to Person(2).

So if we encode matter, send matter, and decode matter we have communication of information.
Different matter works. Different information content works.

.

Anyway, we have lost focus (since quite a while ago!) and deviated from the topic, which is about "information", not "dualism"! — Alkis Piskas

The various models of monism and dualism are inconsitstant in what they model. Some model physical matter and others model mind. I think it gets brought up because the fundamentals are intertwined with the fundamentals of information.

The graphic given doesn't break down P, Physical matter into the special class of brain matter that can contain mental content. M, Mind and mental content?...I dunno, maybe the same. No mention of information in the graphic. My first post about three months ago discussed a Venn diagram approach.
Since this post is about information, I would identify information as physical brain state and use the useful tool of expansion to give information = BRAIN(mental content). And you can't just say information is mental content because mental content is inseparable from brain state.

So I think dualisms is an expansion of monism and monism is an abbreviation of dualism.

Are you identifying the brain with mind or saying that part of the brain is mind? — Alkis Piskas

I used an equals sign to mean 'is the same as'. It's my take on monism and dualism and might not be consistent with traditional meanings. But it's a better model.

You have taken a wrong turn somewhere and are doing mental calisthenics to remake physical matter into information.

The change in a system — Daniel

energy is applied — Daniel

emitted energy — Daniel

amount of change — Daniel

system acts on itself — Daniel

the change it causes on itself through such interaction "is" information — Daniel

Why not just admit we can observe physical matter?

Hence, dualism, and Descartes' statement "I think therefore I am (exist)". — Alkis Piskas

Descartes thought process:
Brain state(1) = BRAIN(mental content(1)) = Descartes BRAIN(Do I exist?)
Brain state(2) = BRAIN(mental content(2)) = Descartes BRAIN(I think therefore I am)