Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy — Gnomon

this is all upside down to a FUBAR state, sorry.

Living organisms dissipate entropy to maintain homeostasis, and this principle is deeply rooted in thermodynamics.

I do not want to hurt you or make you feel bad, but please read and study more.

Nowadays you can chat with an AI, and it will quickly point you out the mistakes and incongruences.

So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile: — Gnomon

sorry, not.

It seems you will at some point pull a joker out of pocket and claim that this proves Creationism, probably. :P

We know more or less EXACTLY when and how energy builds particles, that is why we built the Hadron Collider for 20 or more billion $, you know... and there is no "causal energy" required nor defined for that.

However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. — Gnomon

If you have had maybe looked at my RFOC Theory (videos or texts) there is a part of discussion which, similar to Chalmers, tries to disassemble "Consciousness" into its basis and the rest, in order to disambiguate "easy problems" from "the hard problem", and yes, aware perception is the BASIS.

If we explain physically how does the aware perception rise from neural processes, we have solved it.

There is no such thing as "material evolution" btw, as in physics, all is a form of energy - or quantum fields that interact, if you will. Material (fermions, barions) are just around 4.5% of the total, a form of static energy with a particular spin.

The mind does not directly perceive neural processes in the brain, but the object. — MoK

well, the brain builds only a model, a representation of the object "reality".

We have an interface that represents the outer world in the mind, so it is always only subjective.

I don't understand what that means. I am a substance dualist. — MoK

well one can be a dualist, but it's better to be a trialist:

matter-brain
energy-EM field of it
mind-reflective inner property of the energy field in conjunction with the neural antennae :)

(you can always READ the Yoga sutras by Patanjali :) )

Yes, the brain is involved. We, however, should not forget the contribution of the mind, since that is the mind which causes change in the object. It is also influenced by the content of the brain, referred to as experience. — MoK

the 3 levels are intricately woven into the same machine. Akin to mobile telephony where we have hardware, air protocols (in the field!) and programs-software :)

This cycle never ends :)
— Ulthien
How do you know? Do you believe that knowledge is endless? — MoK

No, i refer to a cybernetics adaptive machine (the brain) that cycles through sensory stimuli & classifies them via thoughts, then feels qualia to decide next steps/directions (as feeling qualia is the quickest way to "intuitively" decide on these huge plethora if input data). For this adaptive cycling (in order to reach homeostasis aka wished-for-equilibrium) the category of "knowledge" is irrelevant :)

I see that plenty of objections are being ignored. Such is life... — AmadeusD

"There are no dialogues, only mutually exclusive monologues" :P

Yours is an appeal to authority. — Banno

more, to common sense :)

The issue is more, what is it that is being named by "qualia"?

The idea was that philosophers define consciousness in terms of qualia. The problem is that qualia are no more clearly defined than is consciousness, and so are not all that helpful. — Banno

Here's one widely accepted formulation:

Qualia are intrinsic and non-intentional phenomenal properties that are introspectively accessible.

Let’s break that down:

Intrinsic: They are part of the experience itself, not dependent on anything external.

Non-intentional: They aren’t about anything (unlike beliefs or desires).

Phenomenal properties: They are the felt qualities of experience—what it’s like to see red or feel pain.

Introspectively accessible: You can become aware of them by turning your attention inward.

This definition is used in academic philosophy, especially in A-level and university-level discussions of consciousness and the mind

(Notice my careful avoidance of the term "learn"! :wink: There is no entity here that can learn anything.) — J

in tech, we do call it "training".

Colloquially, learning :)

Very well said. I would say that thoughts are also a form of Qualia. — MoK

i would say that thoughts are a sequence of qualia (feels of concepts) that follow in quick succession.
On brain scans, we can follow these for a few seconds, and then the brain rests for a few - evaluating "the feel of it" & then it triggers another thought.

This cycle never ends :)

That is how our cybernetics modelling regulator - the brain, works.

Patanjali in his Yogasutras calls this Cittavrti aka mind-spinning.

My contemplation of a math problem involves no qualia, but would be impossible without consciousness. — J

Sorry, our math contemplations do contain a lot of fine qualia that are not so maybe prominent as other stronger qualia, but can still very much be sensed: i.e. rapture, elation, insight, direction, similarity - all of these are qualia feels, too. :)

We could posit that basically ALL of the contents of the conscious aware process are different levels of qualia, actually... (?)

What are you proposing to serve as an active antenna for such long wavelengths? — wonderer1

for the RECEIVING end, i think you did read the TIQM by prof. Cramer that i sent you the link of.

RECEIVING aka PERCEIVING is a quanta-based (photon wave collapse) process that integrates all the billions of pinpoint QED discharges into the "weather radar" type of qualia "feel" back at the emitter.

Emitter being, defined by Poynting vector, at the center of the brain - right at thalamus or the brain stem. That is also where the glucose battery that drives the electrical process is, btw.

I'm not an RF engineer, but the wavelength of an 80Hz oscillation is ~3700 km (with the wavelength of lower frequency brainwave components being even longer).

What are you proposing to serve as an active antenna for such long wavelengths? (Particularly in the electrically noisy environment of a brain.) — wonderer1

I meant that it is proven that the thalamus region in the center of the brain can actively change (entrain) both the regime of work (sleep, deep thinking, active state of perception) and activate directionally different centers of the cortex. So akin to directional lattice of the active antenna.

The environment is noisy but the lead signal of the e.g. alpha and beta waves wins over or superimposes nearby oscillating centers to join in. To get the disparate regions connected by fixed white axonal matter to swing in unison, the medium of the encompassing field is needed: otherwise, the Huygens clocks would also not sync without the transfer medium.

Also, the action potential firings of synced neurons are discrete pulses: Fourier of the pulses are 80 Hz upwards. AI says up to 20kHz:

Theoretical Upper Limit
If the neural spikes are modeled as Dirac delta functions (infinitely narrow), the harmonics extend infinitely in frequency.

In reality, spikes have finite width — typically around 0.2 to 1 ms — which shapes the spectrum via a sinc envelope:

Narrower pulses → broader spectrum

Wider pulses → more concentrated energy in lower harmonics

Practical Attenuation
For a 0.5 ms pulse, the sinc envelope starts to significantly attenuate harmonics above: $$ f \approx \frac{1}{\tau} = \frac{1}{0.0005} = 2000\, \text{Hz} $$ So harmonics above 2 kHz begin to drop off rapidly.

For sub-millisecond spikes, harmonics can remain strong up to 5–10 kHz, depending on the exact shape and recording fidelity.

Real-World Observations
In intracranial recordings (like LFP or ECoG), harmonics above 1–2 kHz are often filtered out or masked by noise.

In high-resolution spike recordings, harmonics up to 10–20 kHz can be observed, especially in fast-spiking interneurons.

Or if we insist on some such description, then we're talking to the humans who invented the program. — J

not really. The programmers gave them only the framework to learn, i.e. designed the artificial neural network. Afterwards, the AI neural network has to be trained, like a child, to do something.

Sounds like my kind of writer — Wayfarer

well, he is a lawyer by profession, so he finds an ear with general public being a good orator :)

also resonance = phase coherence = synchronous oscillation = much stronger field

A collection of electronic switches being conscious is no different than a collection of neurons being conscious.
— RogueAI
Indeed. It is a matter of what the electronic switches are conscious of. — Patterner

Actually, MUCH different - and take it from an EE:

Switches, without the appropriate circuitry do not produce the EM field, especially not phase synchronous pulsating field that seems to be necessary for the consciousness.

Although every flow of charged particles produces the EM field OUTSIDE of the conductor, the photons that the field produces spray out in the direction of Poynting vector (that transmits energy). The reflective feedback of wave collapses of these photons brings back the feel of the situation to the emitter.

So neurons use 20% of bodily energy to pulsate in stroboscopic fashion, in order to taste up i.e. sense the state of neural centers & give rise to the aware consciousness when in range of 7-80 Hz. Cerebellum activity can never be sensed (made aware) in qualia, as it pulsates at ca 350 Hz, so the thalamus-entrained consciousness can only influence and receive within its frequency range - another proof that it is all field-based & works as an active antenna.

I'm not going to countenance such claims. So we won't progress here on that basis. — Banno

EM field theories attempt to solve several puzzles in consciousness science:

The Binding Problem: How does the brain unify information from millions of neurons into a single conscious experience? EM fields, being spatially integrated, might naturally solve this.

Causal Influence: Experiments show that weak EM fields can influence neuron firing, suggesting they’re not just passive byproducts.

Temporal Integration: EM fields may encode information in space rather than time, offering a new computational paradigm for consciousness.

Tam Hunt: https://nautil.us/are-the-brains-electromagnetic-fields-the-seat-of-consciousness-238013/

No, we don't. — Banno

even in greater detail, we know which frequency band of EM field does which part of conscious experience, too.

(3am in EU, zzZZz -- to be continued)

We are interested in that we might better call the intentional state, the beliefs and desires and so on that supposedly exist and yet are not directly accessible to others. — Banno

From a PoV of a software engineer that coded in LISP back in 1973 when P.Winstons book "AI" came out it is easy to classify both the intentions, beliefs and desires as "easy problems" of the consciousness.

To search for transposition mechanism that converts neural processes into subjective experience, we need first delineate what is the essential or minimal feature of consciousness upon which all the rest of the easier conscious processes are attached to, like of emotions, will, thoughts etc.

The very essence of consciousness is the ability to have aware perception of qualia, i.e. sensing of the contents of the brain's ever-adapting modelling machine.

Namely, the known part of the brain's mechanism depicts the outer world in its neural network and builds models that it uses for beliefs, desires, intentions that drive this cybernetical meandering machine towards the realisation of the goals that biology requests from it: mostly feeding & reproduction.

But to be more than a neural network that processes information as a p-zombie, the brain-machine has to be able to create a vivid, aware, subjective qualification as a feel, a qualia that represents its model-state.

And it does this through the EM field that it spends 20% of bodily energy to create, almost 20 out of 95 Watt - pulsating stroboscopically to literary reflect on the "way the things are".

We already know that brains EM field that we measure as EEG is the NCC - neural correlate of consciousness. It is just less know HOW the EM field does produce the subjective awareness.

(if interested, you can find my videos and docs on exactly this subject in other posts of mine..)

↪Ulthien The general consensus in this thread is that Sabine got it wrong. — Wayfarer

well, from decades old research around 2000s, we know that we can map the conceptual content of the brain to the synchronous activity of different neural centers. This is statistically so.

The only issue could be, that qualia are different in origination then the other conceptual contents. IMHO they (qualia) could only differ in that they activate more of the brain stem area for dopamine and other "value" chemicals that contribute to the "feel".

What do you think, ChatGPT? — Wayfarer

That you have to ask a blabberer that does not have the newest data model to conclude anything new is ... sorrowful indeed.

This whole thread began with Sabine's insight into a months old research:
https://youtu.be/NCD2A_bhDTI?si=jDF_Xb_jEm4UTS2y&t=170

( a reminder that NEWLY, we CAN map the qualia!)

So if we can map the qualia in a 2D scan, we can ALSO show it to an AI.
(although it does not have the architecture YET to feel pain or qualia, it can "understand" it from these pictures).

PS there is no need to repeat n times in different ways that current machines cannot experience qualia, we understand that already.

I will link here to the other thread where i tried explain which architecture and WHY can feel the qualia... :

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1001972

Could we show ChatGPT what pain is? It does not have the mechanism required, obviously. But moreover it cannot participate in the "form of life" that would enable it to be in pain. — Banno

OFC,

the same way AI interprets any kind of pictures, it can EASILY map out the MR scans of the active brain areas to conclude which qualia is (statistically) present.

To whom do the codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins?" is RNA, or maybe the laws of physics. — Patterner

they do seem to interact through shifting the possible states according to the key surfaces found in the environment. This IS already communication, and according to some Copenhagen and TIQM interpretations of quantum mechanics, it does mean that the "observation" of the surroundings leads to sensing, and afterwards to a determined outcome.

So yes, in lieu of my theory of consciousness, the proto-awareness is already there at this tiny level, BUT ONLY because it includes quantum wave collapse that in itself contains the measurement and, therefore, sensing aka "observation" of "what is" on the "outside".

=================
Here a bit of AI introduction to prof McFadden's thoughts on the subject:

Johnjoe McFadden, along with Jim Al-Khalili, proposed a provocative idea linking quantum mechanics to biological processes — particularly adaptive mutation and possibly protein behavior. While McFadden’s work doesn’t directly claim that proteins “unfold from a quantum indeterminate state,” he does explore how quantum coherence and decoherence might influence biological systems like DNA and mutation rates.

Key Concepts from McFadden’s Quantum Biology Work

Quantum Superposition in DNA: McFadden suggests that protons in DNA bases may exist in a superposition of states (e.g., shifted vs. unshifted), which could influence mutation outcomes.

Decoherence as a Trigger: Interaction with the environment — such as the presence of a substrate — could cause decoherence, collapsing the superposition and favoring certain mutations.

Adaptive Mutation Model: This framework implies that cells might “select” mutations based on environmental cues, challenging the classical view that mutations are entirely random.

Protein Folding & Quantum Effects While McFadden’s work focuses more on DNA and mutation, other studies — like those using variable-temperature ion mobility mass spectrometry — show that proteins can pass through intermediate states during unfolding, which may resemble quantum-like transitions in terms of unpredictability and complexity【6†7†8】. These states aren’t necessarily quantum indeterminate, but they do reflect non-classical behavior in how proteins transition between folded and unfolded forms.

↪Patterner Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results?
— RogueAI
Yes. DNA is encoded information. The codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins. Using that information, things like the RNAs, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, and ribosomes assemble the amino acids and proteins. That's been happening since long before anything observed it. — Patterner

Already the RNA that transcribes is the "observer"- and more so, the resultant synthesised protein reactions in the cell are.

Though, in information theory we call the observer a "receiver", and info producer the "emitter".
There are concepts of entropy, validity, redundancy, loss and knowledge transmission related..

======
With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P

"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge.

Key Thinkers & Concepts

Dennis Gabor (1946): Introduced the idea of the logon — a minimal unit of information in wave signals — and explored how measurement itself is a form of information acquisition.

Donald MacKay (1950s): Argued that information is meaningful only in relation to the observer’s knowledge. He focused on how scientific measurements convey information about physical systems.

Léon Brillouin (1956): Bridged physics and information theory, showing how entropy and information are linked in thermodynamics. He emphasized that information reduces uncertainty for the observer.

Core Principles

Information is not just about transmission — it’s about meaning, context, and knowledge acquisition.

Scientific practices like measurement and observation are inherently informational.

The observer plays a central role: information is defined by how it changes the observer’s state of knowledge.

Historical Context

The English School gained traction in the UK during the 1940s–1950s, especially around the London Symposium on Information Theory in 1950.

It was later overshadowed by Shannon’s framework, but its ideas influenced fields like philosophy of science, statistical mechanics, and cognitive science."

When protein is synthesized, information is processed. The structure of DNA is encoded information. The codons mean amino acids, and the order of the codons means proteins. Proteins are literally assembled. They are stuck together, molecule by molecule, in the specified order. This is the beginning of consciousness of more than individual particles. — Patterner

prof McFaddem the author of CEMI theory went on similar lines back in 2001 when he, over molecular biology, which is his area of knowledge, posited that complex biological molecules like proteins unfold from quantum undetermined state BASED UPON info surroundings, i.e. they communicate and adapt to assume one of 5-6 possible fold-forms based on local needs.

Here is an AI-summary of his further thinking:

⚛️ 1. The Binding Problem
McFadden was intrigued by how the brain integrates disparate sensory inputs — color, shape, motion — into a unified conscious experience. He argued that molecular mechanisms, like neurotransmitter release and ion channel activity, are temporally integrated (i.e., they process information over time), but not spatially integrated — meaning they don’t physically unify information in space.

He proposed that only energy fields, like electromagnetic (EM) fields, can integrate information across space simultaneously.

2. Synchronous Neuronal Firing
Studies showed that synchronous firing of neurons correlates strongly with conscious awareness. McFadden noted that when neurons fire in sync, their EM fields reinforce each other, creating a coherent global EM field. This field, he argued, could serve as the physical substrate of consciousness3.

3. Feedback Loop & Causality
Unlike passive molecular processes, McFadden proposed that the brain’s EM field is causally active — it doesn’t just reflect neural activity, but can influence neuron firing via voltage-gated ion channels. This creates a feedback loop: neurons generate the EM field, and the field in turn modulates neuronal behavior.

4. Consciousness as Field-Level Computation
He suggested that consciousness is not just computation in time (like in digital circuits), but algorithmic processing in space — within the EM field itself. This wave-based computation could handle holistic concepts like identity, meaning, and self, which are difficult to reduce to molecular interactions4.

It seems I can't access the file without giving out identifying information I don't want to give out. — wonderer1

i found it online :)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00039

For any unit to be conscious as a unit, it must be a unit processing energy — Ulthien

..but exactly this "lapsus" made me join here, as it stands true for the binding of the info to sentiency: only the EM quantum field can accomplish this thansposition :)

As an EE myself, I have to say that sounds to me like pseudoscience. — wonderer1

well, dear colleague, have a go at TIQM seminal paper (in hope you are not too young to have had quantum mechanics curriculum on study years): it opens the eyes directly :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6tTbR_rt0sWjlrlKEXAcg0xzZK2QRSb/view?usp=drive_link

I was reminded of another pseudoscience, IIT. — RogueAI

well, I agree on that - integrated consciousness theory by IT colleagues DOES lack the mechanism that physically accounts for sensing of that information - which CEMI RFOC does offer..

"Where do you land on the issue of consciousness? What's your favored theory?"

well since 2006 and speaking with some anesthesiologist dr. and getting acquainted with TIQM of prof. Cramer, it dawned to me that aware perceiving aka sensing of EM situation of the brain is quite a simple "inner" feature of a stroboscopically pulsating brain EEG EM field: it tastes or collects the situation, akin to a "weather radar" albeit this integrates here into an ever-present moment of *now* due to instantaneous collapse of photon wave of the brain field.

In other words, the emitter is the observer, and the expenditure of 20% of bodily energy for the field in the brain serves the purpose of information collection and presentation as qualia.

here are some AI videos of my theory which I call RFOC (resonant field overlap collapse) as an extension/explanation of prof. McFadden's CEMI theory (Conscious Electromagnetic field Information)... (i still work on making the theory understandable to everyone also from different walks of life, so any input is much appreciated :)

I presented it first at my MMC computer club annual meeting 2 years ago.

short intro: https://youtu.be/6dA2xgdhSsw?si=yGYkBe_OIE_WW924

AI intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gFcgHYPlOo&list=PLTJJU-mQ_nDb-sPTq4tjMLImbhj7cceRU&index=9

part of my lecture, AI enhanced: https://youtu.be/u3KkhQy7k_E?si=VHAHkG26oH9-6xEV

.pdf slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1z9NZumOJKCfflgNdQOWttTmLHWUIeOU-TgHj4sGm0MA/edit?usp=sharing

elaboration points: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gy0FRQHsWAG_5E7q_WmlpFCEK8i8FHRl/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105114585402487734057&rtpof=true&sd=true

So how can a truth just vanish the moment consciousness does? If that’s the case, then some truths depend on minds to exist—which challenges the idea that all truths are purely objective or physical. — RogueAI

emm... we have a quite developed information theory as science (of EE & IT). Suffice to say that info has a relevance within a context - so information is not information in all cases - i.e. there is no objective info.

Which has noth to do with the fact that it is physical.
The MEANING is not, or at least not directly readable as physical: you need access & interpret it.

Also, me thinks we need distinguish in detail "what is searched for" as distinction between easy and hard problems of consciousness as defined by Chalmers back in 1996.

The core of the basis of consciousness is the ability to awarely perceive and feel the qualia (the instantaneous, non-computational, direct, subjective, private, SENSING).

Cittavrti by Patanjali: When qualia appear in succession, we perceive a thought, when the brain rests for a few secs (like it does after every thought), we evaluate and feel the qualia which stumbles our cybernetics-meandering regulatory organ (the brain!) into next perturbations..

For any unit to be conscious as a unit, it must be a unit processing energy. Arrangements of particles must mean something other than the arrangements of particles that they are, and they must be processing that information. So DNA, the beginning of life, is also the beginning of groups of particles that are conscious as a unit. — Patterner

close, but no cigar.

[found your discussion guys online & joined in the forums to contribute, as this subject has been haunting me since 2006 and atheist forums back then ;) ]

My background being an EE of old, and that meaning the applied physics, I hope you do not mind me introducing more of physics language into the discussion, as this offshoot of philosophy IS the language by which we understand and describe "the reality out there" (and "in there"?) nowadays..

Me thinks we need distinguish between:
a) information representation - the complexity of bits and tidbits that are describing the contents, and
b) the mechanism that senses the contents i.e. gives them qualia as subjective, aware, cognizant experience - the one we might name "the basis of consciousness".

↪RogueAI So anyway, the claim now from you is, if physicalism is true then knowing everything about the physical arrangement of the book should allow you to understand the meaning of the book, even if you don't understand the language it was written in.

I just don't think that follows. — flannel jesus

There are 2 very good answers that confirm this:

A) Searle and his Chinese Room argument
i.e. special architecture is needed to sustain consciousness and it cannot arise from bit-waggling.

B) Penrose and his Gödel's Theorem implications for Consciousness
i.e. consciousness can not be a computational or iterative result.