Gosh, can't figure out how. So sorry.

Delete duplicate.

If you would like a picture of the problem just click on my name and go to my profile page, then enlarge the profile image about 300 percent. What you see is a head with a brain looking at an inanimate object. So say x is an apple and light travels to your eye, a signal travels through your optic nerve to your brains vision processing region and finally to (generally) your cerebral cortex. There it's held as what you call representative content. Your brain would be thinking "apple".
I used Y(o) which means a sufficiently large neuron group containing a non- physical.
Is your view any different and what would you correct?

So Bartricks, your strong suit as I see it is discovery through chaos, and there have been a few things of interest to me along the way. Maybe three.
To add to the chaos there is the class of inanimate objects that we deal with all the time. No agency in a tree or a mountain or the moon but you have the exact same process of information conveyance, perception and true belief.

Is it just me or did Bartrick slip a conclusion into the first premise? The word "then" seems to be a tip off. I think a reset or restatement of some sort might clear up some issues. There is still the question of agency or evolution that needs an answer. Can't be both and it should be answered first.

For as noted above, neither the note nor the inky markings are themselves doing any representing. — Bartricks

You have actually addressed something I was asking about. Is it fair to say communication uses physical matter only to transfer mental content from person 1 to person 2?
But then you muddled it with the agency business.
Has anyone every taught you the fine art of doing a U-turn?

They fail in every case: that's what I'm arguing. That 'if' our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes - that is, if we just evolved them - then they never give us any real awareness of anything. — Bartricks

This is what I'm getting at. You seem to view current mental state as dependent on some agency and somehow our mental state is different if it where evolved. I'm just saying our mental state is what it is regardless.
As far as messaging, that gets to what I mentioned about information pixies. To me, mental input comes as only physical signals and our brains have to use algorithms to sort meaning. The bot example is a tricky one for me. In a format like this we would all be susceptible to being fooled since the only input is what we see on our screens.

There is also the question 'is the faculty of awareness emergent?'. First it didn't exist, then it emerged in simple form and developed to its complex form. That would look to be evolutionary.

We are getting along just fine and I'm working on being less sneery.
And Mr. Guru has his own opinions.
Back to the OP, it seems our faculty of awareness is an observable state that should be unaffected by our speculating on theory 1 or theory 2, (evolution or agency).

Maybe awareness. Is that the answer you want? tim wood warned us.

Fair enough...I guess.
Something else you mentioned was the term "imparting information". Is that just common usage or do you envision information pixies riding light beams?

You used the term "agency" so I'm asking if the same agency applies to the origin of the universe.

Every case and the origin of the universe too?

Can you identify a point where unguided evolutionary forces fail?
For example plant life, simple organisms, complex organisms, brains, brains with awareness.
And could you expand on why the "faculty of awareness" could not develop by a physical process.

I couldn't get to the end of what you wrote...just started daydreaming about porches from fifty years ago.

So going back to yesterday and looking how time shows up in mental content, I would suggest to look at the things we write. This is probably the best evidence of how we really handle time. For example, a news article giving the who, what, when and where. I don't think the time details would be routed through any special brain region. Reporting the who, what and where would be a copy and paste operation and time would be the same. And when a reader reads a news report the time details are processed like any other detail and held as mental content.
Authors are another interesting example. They actually make their living on mental content and time details would be part of any writing. The amount an author can write in a year also might give a benchmark for what all of us are capable of in terms of mental content

Ok, I'll look for some good examples that aren't too trivial. Got stuff to do. Might be tomorrow and my internet is bad.

I use my own notation for doing this and I'll show you how I do it.
If notation isn't your thing just skip it. Most people don't like it but I do.
I use:
x , (lower case) for all physical matter
Y , (upper case) for sufficiently large neuron groups
(o) , (lower case in parenthesis) for mental content

So, [neurons, (mental content)] in notation is Y(o).
Thinking would be Y(content; initial) ---> Y(content; step 1, step 2, etc.) ---> Y(content; final).
Input would be x ---> senses ---> Y(o).
Output would be Y(o; activate muscles) ---> muscles ---> x.

So this is a process notation with just three basic elements, that's all you need. I use a semi colon to clarify or add detail. There is never a situation were (o) is separated from it's supporting neurons so it's entirely physically based. I do more complicated ones by adding known details and writing in the margins but those get messy. Seems to be useful and I seem to make progress faster.

Communication would be [person 1; Y(o; Hello) -->x; voice] -->x; sound waves --> (To person 2)
x; sound waves --> [person 2; -->x; hearing --> Y(o; Person 1 is saying 'Hello').

They pass physical signals that can be used as input...not all...some or a lot of inputs we just ignore but mentally we try to prioritize and process the important things.
Also, on the output side there are our muscles fully connected to mental content. This is important as it gives full loop capabilities, control of physical objects...a lot to explore here...things like feedback, motor control, coordination...it's great if you can understand it all working together.
Things like our eyes are a special case. They use muscle output to aim and select input.

I think WE can sort this out. Go to a dictionary or dictionaries and check the multiple definitions of perceive and perceptions. Also notice how they are used as verbs and nouns.
So what makes sense to me is based on a definition that fits my purpose and I try but don't always specify. You have some ability to pick the best meaning by context. If you're asking if my usage involves the senses, then, no it does not.

I am wondering where entropy theory is coming from. Is it academic programs, publications or comments here?

delete

I was modeling time perception as mental content that would not be subject to the laws of physical matter. As a psychological matter, It would be more of an analogy and would lose it's mathematical or technical meaning. I'm seeing the ability to observe and process physical change as something done at the level of our mental content held by our cerebral cortex.

Entropy could apply to the thermodynamics of the brains metabolism. Is that what you mean? There is also Shannon entropy and entropy used as an analogy.

Thinking of time perception as mental content also works well for physical processes like charging your cell phone or filling your gas tank or watching grass grow or waiting for paint to dry.
Or you could ask 180 Proof how it works through homeostasis.

I'm suggesting our brains handle time in a generalist way in our cerebral cortex.
What am I going to eat for my next meal? I have forty dollars in my wallet. Where are my car keys? What time is it? I should get a hair cut. I need new shoes.
Do you see, the way we actually deal with time it's just part of the mix, like car keys or shoes.

There was some middle of the night stuff about sex I read a day later.
Maybe that's why.
I did get through your list of neuro philosophers on Wikipedia. Too much there to comment on. I do like bringing other fields into philosophy to get perspective. Did you know the average mass density of the universe is about one hydrogen atom per four cubic meters? Really sparse. Seems significant to philosophy. We are kind of in a sweet spot here on the surface of planet earth.

I did ask for opinions and you can never guess what might turn up. I like it.

If I remember correctly, until now, physical matter has always been found to exist in the future. — Luke

As for psychology, I think it might be correct.

The essential answer is:
Time is per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
undetectable = cannot be investigated in the slightest. — steppo25

It seems you sort of restated my original premise, maybe, maybe not. But why would you give up on understanding the psychology of time?
My view is physical matter exists only in the present and that leads to the question of why and how we perceive past, present and future.

deleted duplicate.

I change the wording and grammar too often. I think you got it right though, as far as understanding the context.
I would equate the skyscraper example to a virtual network that is capable of time perception, imaging, decision making...or everything the cerebral cortex is known to do.
And not in modules like the evolutionary psychologists would theorize...what are they thinking? Would you grab a hand shovel if you had a D8 Cat dozer ready in the back lot? Of course not. How silly.
Think of it as a vast virtual network with enormous capabilities in one package.

The brain/mind can be subdivided into 3 parts:

1. Memory [the past]
2. Executive functions [the present]
3. Imagination [the future] — TheMadFool

Does memory involve neurons? Does memory involve mental content?
If yes and yes then memory is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].
Does executive function involve neurons? Does executive function involve mental content?
If yes and yes then executive function is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].
Does imagination involve neurons? Does imagination involve mental content?
If yes and yes then imagination is in the form [neurons, (mental content)].

Ok, I know I go on and on. It's habit. For my benefit maybe. Or just because something interesting might come up. Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to.

Also, based on observation, our mental process does have full input/output capabilities and this model accounts for those capabilities.

You got me thinking about something.
In my OP, I used the notation [neurons, (an instantiated non-physical)].
Would changing the words to [neurons, (mental content)] be more understandable?
And give an example of how this notation could give insight into mental process:
-[your neurons, (mental content)] could be expanded to the specific [your neurons, (a platoon of geeky lab-coated pencil-pushers)]
-Through physical process you type (you are doing physical encoding) and send a physical signal.
-I receive the physical signal and decode it.
-[my neurons, (mental content)] becomes specifically [my neurons,(a platoon of geeky lab-coated pencil-pushers)].
Of course his is common place, your idea becomes my idea sort of thing. It's just normally we wouldn't note the neurons being present, but to do rigorous philosophy, we should.
I think it also identifies an area that neuro philosophy is not addressing.

Enrique is a genius. He's invented the sport of math guy chain jerking. It might catch on with high school students. Ultimately a good thing that keeps the math guys on their toes.

Ok, you're new to me but looks like you've been around awhile.

Ok, you're new to me, but looks like you've been around awhile.

Ok, neuro philosophy and evolutionary psychology checking in. I'll check through the names to learn more...might take awhile.

The math here keeps shifting. I thought the plane in 3 dim was the best answer now everything has changed with iterations thrown in. Convince me you're not jerking our chains.

I could back track on saying physicalism fails, but I would need to look deeper into what reason, information, memory, mental process, perception mean in physicalist philosophy. And the list given all fall into the category of what I call instantiated non-physicals.
Something to consider is the things being instantiated cannot/could not exist without neurons to contains them and in you model of philosophy is that something to give up. To me it just seems more rigorous to acknowledge or at least explore this possibility.
In general, if you think your brain has mental content, you need a philosophy that accounts for this and it needs to recognize content has both input and output capabilities.