I think my approach gives a good perspective on the Monism/Dualism question.
Brain state, if entirely physical, is monism.
The equivalent expansion of BRAIN(Mental content) is still entirely physical but brings into view the elements of dualism.
The examples of non-physicals you give will always share the same location and time of your physical brain so this expansion method gives some useful insights.

Red Pill moment — Pop

I had to Google this. It's a reference to the 1999 film "the Matrix".

Finally, I think we should try to find this basic, generally applicable definition of information not from the human point of view, or the organismal/cellular point of view, but from a more objective/general one, if possible - so, instead of thinking about what information is for a human being, or a cell, we should think what information would be for a star, or for a water molecule in an ocean, or for the elements of a multiplicity, as Joshs said. If information is a quality of an interaction, then it plausible that information is not a quality of only human interactions but also a quality of any other type of interactions. — Daniel

I see this as an artificial limit were you are enforcing both a dualist form (information is extra-physical) and also brain restricted.
Since the entirety of information of original post and comments on this thread are brain originated how could that be concidered and wouldn't you encourage the opposite (brain based dominance) or tolerate the status quo that is a vetting of all views.
But, yes, I agree with you and frank that some days seem out of control. Maybe weekends...alcohol?

I enjoyed reading your comments. I had a few of the same thoughts. I get the feeling you 'weren't born yesterday' and 'this isn't your first rodeo'.
I was remembering my history of the bad time the colonists of Jonestown (Virginia) had.
Edit: I think I meant Jamestown, Jonestown was the massacre.

Non-physical is a tricky concept because it implies non-existence. There is a work around.
If you start with brain state that is entirely physical it can be expanded by ackowledging that it contains mental content such as:
Brain state = BRAIN(mental content), still entirely physical.

A further expansion will give:
BRAIN(content dealing with the physical) and
BRAIN(content dealing with the non-physical)
Still entirely physical.
I think this addresses the issue.

Maybe in some ways information about time is held in our cerebral cortex just like 'that's a tree' or 'that's a rock'. Someone commented in my time perception post that the temperal lobes play a part...memory maybe, and the examples of brain science you give. You have to go pretty deep into anatomy and function to get a good picture. I try to pick up what I can but go to the experts on this.
I see it as a problem were the end points are known but the intermediate processes need to be solved. For the people who know maybe a lot has been solved. The end points would be the physical brain and mental content.
Mental content, as a concept, is something some people would like to back engineer into computers as in the Artificial Intellegence field.

I did a post on time perception a few months ago and it died. Here are a few examples of that.
If you consider information takes the form BRAIN(mental content) then time as we perceive it as information can take multiple forms, such as:

BRAIN (present clock time)
BRAIN (the past, present or future)
BRAIN(time duration, such as in physics or engineering math problems)
BRAIN(time and location as a meeting point)
BRAIN(time as non-existant-it is always the physical present)
BRAIN(time dictating a series of physical events, task 1, task 2, task 3...)
BRAIN(recurring events, like your dental appointment)
BRAIN(deadlines)
BRAIN(evaluating feasibility based on time constraints)
BRAIN(time based billing)

The point being time perception is inseparably linked to information.

Great!!! You agreed with me on something. Like you said a few months ago, we are usually oceans apart.

We test for mental content all the time (tests, quizes, exams) so in practice we ackowlegde mental content exist. I'm wondering if it's falsifiable or unfalsifiable... not sure. My default is that mental content does exist. — Mark Nyquist

Sorry I'm quoting myself here. There is a question of if mental content exists, what it is and is it falsifiable.
I sometimes write BRAIN(mental content) as the form of information we experience, and since the tool of an epistemic cut is being brought up I am looking at making a cut like this: Brain | (mental content).
I don't think you can because the way I was explaining it, the notation was an expansion on something that is singular...brain state.

Brain state (1) is BRAIN(Mental content (1))
Brain state (2) is BRAIN(Mental content (2))

This expansion is useful because you can include mental content such as:
POPS BRAIN( the content of pops last post)

I don't mean this text is information. It's not. It's just coded physical matter. The information would have been active as pop wrote it. Like this:
POPS BRAIN(paragraph 1) , time duration t0 to t1
POPS BRAIN(paragraph 2) , t1 to t2
POPS BRAIN(paragraph 3) , t2 to t3

The time duration shows information as dynamic.
So back to the question of is this model falsifiable. Theoretically it is but in practice it isn't.
It would involve taking an entire dynamic brain state and extracting mental content.
If you really wanted to use an epistemic cut you would need to acknowledge mental content can't exist in a physically divided state.

This was the chemical paradigm view of information from the Barbieri paper.

"supporters of the chemical paradigm have argued that the concept of information is only a linguistic metaphor, a word that summarizes the result of countless underlying chemical reactions."

I agree with it so maybe I'm a chemical paradigm supporter. If you reject this view you are saying matter and energy are not sufficient to support life. And it's not anything close to the information we experiece with our brains (refering to both views).

Biology is finding that enzymes rely on quantum uncertainty to amplify their ability to make desired reactions happen. Life and mind thrive on zones of instability because they can master that free energy to do work - give the randomness of big fluctuations a cohesive direction that then builds, and keeps rebuilding, the same material structures. — apokrisis

This I like. My interest is in brain only information and this is relevent.

But an organism is a machinery that thrives on zones of instability as it has the means - the information - to just keep rebuilding itself. That is why life thrives in hot sun, intertidal zones, volcanic underwater vents, and anywhere else that there is lots of unpredictability and so the basic raw material to feed a machinery that can turn that into the predictable. — apokrisis

This I don't like. If we are going to study information we need to have some order of analysis and studying brain only information should come first, because that's how we use information, that's how we can philosophize and it's the basis of how we do science. If we don't understand brain only information first, these cases of disembodied or assigned "information" start to show up.
Something to observe is this brain only type of information alway occurs in a dynamic state and never in a static state. An example of what this brain only information really is, is what we write as we write it. And what we write is a sampling and record of mental content. Once written it becomes static, basically just encoded matter, not information.
I'm really not complaining about anyones views or writing style, but this thread has been a lot to sort through. Maybe sometime I'll post on why Claude Shannon information theory is a bad idea as a universal theory of information.

If you think of how information really exists in our brains you shouldn't be thinking of generalized information. The way it is would be a singular core function capable of adding parameters, quantities, qualities, connections or any other capabilities that might exist. This singular nature gives our brains the ability to connect any item the brain contains with any other item the brain contains (and external matter).

But it is a simpler language that doesn’t make it easy to construct nested hierarchical statements - long sentences with multiple clumps of sub clauses - — apokrisis

The subject of nested hierarchies is fundamental to how the brain functions and what information is. It's the first I've seen it come up.
Another subject to look at is back propagation as it plays a role in our brains input/output capabilities.
For example making decisions like 'no, don't do that' or 'yes, do that'.

I don't see any explanations on how the laws of science aren't violated. — TheMadFool

If you think they are you could point that out.
I'm thinking about the turning test. Biology and electronic computers each have unique parameters.

I'll give you my version of this using my model notation:
A physical poodle enters the room--->Physical light travels from the poodle to your eyes--->A physical signal travels from your eyes to your brains vision processing region--->Physical signals from this brain region are transmitted to regions that have the ability to instantiate mental content as a specific brain state.
The final state takes the form BRAIN(mental content) as in BRAIN(a poodle has entered the room).
We test for mental content all the time (tests, quizes, exams) so in practice we ackowlegde mental content exist. I'm wondering if it's falsifiable or unfalsifiable... not sure. My default is that mental content does exist. That leads to the idea that information exists in the form of BRAIN(mental content).
If you missed it earlier in this thread it solves the logic problem of how the physical can interact with the "non-physical" (really neuron contained mental content) and vice versa. This would assume full input/output capabilities. Such as Physical input--->senses--->BRAIN(mental content)--->muscles--->Physical output.

No, the 12 inch Tinker Bell Classic Doll has a five star rating and costs $26.88. Sorry, that's more than I can afford...I'm on a fixed income.

My opinion is you've taken a wrong turn somewhere and are trying to rationalize it by using technical terms. You're trying to make everything information by sprinkling your magic pixie dust on it. I'm going over to Amazon now to buy you a Tinkerbell award.

I could add there is a lot of free math content online now. Tutorials, calculators, simulators, on and on.

Eudoxus of Cnidus. This is a good one...astronomer, mathematician...connections with Socrates, Plato and taught Aristotle...Built an astronomical observatory plus what you said. Worked with proportions...that's interesting. Wow.
All his works were lost.

Here is my experience with calculus. A few years after taking undergrad Calculus I and II at a state university (about 40 years ago) cheap graphing calculators were available. I got one and relearned by graphing problems.
What I suspect is the people who developed calculus started with shapes and moved to notation and as they learned the subject would use mostly notation. As a student, thinking in terms of shapes can help. But there is the extra layer of knowing your calculators capabilities and limits. And sometimes pencil and paper work too. I sometimes work simple problems just so I don't forget the basics. I'm not someone who uses it at work so I just find my own comfort level.

But then there is the process view of Peirce, systems science, and others. Now enduring substance with its inherent properties becomes instead just a generalise potential or state of radical uncertainty. A chaotic fluctuation with no special persistence or direction at all. The material aspect of substantial being becomes the least possible form of substantial being. — apokrisis

Your comments are an excellent example of 'Showboating' and I especially liked this paragraph. Do you have a room with technical terms tacked to the wall and a ball of yarn or do you use more modern methods? I'd like to know.

We fight like pirates but go home in one peice.

Pragmatic theory of information — Pop

So in your OP which did you intend? I would have stayed away from the Shannon version.

Something that comes to mind is Zeno's paradox. Zeno of Elea born c. 495 BCE. A detail I recall, but can't reference, was that it was intentionally meant to be counter intuitive. Zeno understood the problem and used it to provoke a reaction. This would have been pre-Socratic Greece. So that would be the earliest example I know of someone dealing with the basics of calculus. I'm sure you knew that but it might be a starting point for anyone interested.

Something for monists to consider is the class of non-physical information, for example philosophy itself, beliefs, ideas, political views and generally things that are physically intangible. This poses a problem in logic. How can a non-physical exist. By definition a non-physical has no physical form and a monist only has physical matter to work with. Dualism is a response to this problem but fails in the details.
A solution might be to start from a monist/physicalist view and identify information as an emergent property of matter, specifically tied to brain function. In notation form, you have BRAIN(information) and you can deal with both physical content (a representation) and non-physical content (a representation), specifically:
BRAIN(information; content representing physical matter) and
BRAIN(information; content representing non-physicals).
This solves the logic problem and you can go on to develop your models of information.

I fear Claude Shannon's work has entered pop culture as it never was intended.
So you are saying information is NOT a non-physical, IS a co-element of a substance but is physically unmeasurable and doesn't alter in any way the substance. Without more detail given, that is no more than imaginary thinking.

Another thought is that the monism/dualism question and the what is information question should be considered and solved together.

Pop, something I noticed yesterday (and correct me if I'm wrong) is you claim a monist view but propose that information is a co-element of any substance. A first thought was, matter is physical and information is non-physical, so isn't that dualism?

The Carl Popper method of negating an argument is dependent on how you define information and your definition is clearly untestable. Your perception of (Matter-Information) is a hallucination of your mind.
Edit: Karl Popper.

It follows information is a co-element of any substance. — Pop

So (Matter-Information)? That seems like a new kind of dualism. Are brains even required?
This is better:
Matter--->Brain(Information; the perception of matter).

I'm trying to understand your meaning of the word 'integrate'.

Consciousness integrates information. — Pop

Do you mean processes? Or combines/mixes? Some dynamic process?

integrated to a point — Pop

This didn't help. Do you mean information can be focused?
Is it mathematical like a calculation, dynamic process, or changing state?
I've read through most of the comments into the fourth page and I'm not getting it by the context. It just reduces to techno jargon to me.
And why does every 'thing' need to irreducibly contain information? So would you say something elementary like a hydrogen atom has some information pixies hanging about. How does that work. Why not make it easy on yourself and identify it as a hydrogen atom, period.

Here is something to watch out for...since I did a search on Google for quantum consciousness, news articles on quantum consciousness are popping up on my Google news...algorithms maybe.
I really don't think it's the best science but you might get that idea if it's all you search for.
There is also the issue of whether or not 'what is consciousness? is a legitimate question. There might be some prerequisite questions like 'is physical matter all there is?'. I would answer yes. Then I would ask 'does mental content exist?'. I would answer yes, if brain function reaches a certain threshold mental content can exist. This way gives you a solid basis for answering related questions such as what is intelligence, what is information, what are thoughts, ideas, beliefs, how higher order functions like language and mathematics work and so on. And after that, you may or may not still want to ask 'what is consciousness?'.

Sorry I deleted that. My mistake. When I posted it showed up triple so I started deleting.
I had checked ATP on Google and Wikipedia and tried to summarize. Basically it's present in all cells and its function is to store and release energy. Breaking a phosphate group linkage provides energy and reduces the molecule to ADP. The cells mitochondria uses energy from food to convert ADP to ATP. It plays a role in muscle contraction. It is used in neurons for firing and signal propagation.
The chemistry of ATP in the neuron gets really involved with binding sites and action potentials.
The broken off phosphate group is a phosphorus atom with some oxygen bonds, a fairly simple molecule. I'm mostly just reviewing this for myself. It's helpful to get an image of the chemical structure of ATP breaking down to ADP.

Deleted

Deleted

I'm a little skeptical and even paranoid that the authors of books on quantum consciousness were either told by their publishers or figured out on their own to push their theories to the extreme to sell more books.

What I like about a consciousness model built up from the neuron level is there are known events such as the firing of neurons that correlate to mental activity and you can have active and inactive states.
Can you identify anything at the quantum level that always correlates to mental activity, can be turned off and on, or is some kind of switching device that could play a role in decision making? And why would these capabilities exist only in the brains of biological organisms? Has our genetic code found some way to exploit quantum phenomenon? And what quantum phenomenon would there be at the temperature our brains function?

This "Minding" (verb) is worth looking at.
So as a process:
Brain state (1) --->Minding process ---> Brain state (2).
Also,
Brain state (1) is Mental content (1),
Brain state (2) is Mental content (2).
Example,
I have three dollars to spend on a used book --->Minding process --->
I own a used book.

Put simply, we aren't sure that the mind is physical but then nonphysicalists have to explain why? i.e. what (good) reasons are there that the mind could be nonphysical? — TheMadFool

There are not just two choices here, the mind being physical or non-physical. A third choice is "do brains have the ability to contain the non-physical?". So this is not a singular form but is irreducible. We deal with mental content all the time and it's never separate from our physical brain so why not acknowledge this two part form?

Ok, I'll take that as a counter argument. But we shouldn't get so bogged down in theory that we forget we can examine its workings directly.