I'm still on the energy-consciouness relation.
Our brains use 20 percent of our bodies total energy. In terms of power it's about as much as a 10 watt light bulb. So we should suspect consciousness is energy driven. I don't think that's the end of it though. Once we have functioning consciousness the subject matter can drive physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

In my thesis, there is indeed a close relationship between Energy and Consciousness. Both are emergent forms of a cosmic predecessor that I call EnFormAction. But each sub-form has its own characteristic properties. Energy is physical causation, but no material properties. Instead, in my hypothesis, tangible Matter --- mathematically defined in terms of Mass --- is what happens to Energy when the speed of Light slows down enough for a phase change (to Mass) to occur (E=MC^2). So, Light & Matter & Mind are different phases of the same Universal Substance (essence), to which I apply the modern term "Information", but translate into EnFormAction : the creative act of enforming (i.e. transformation or causation).

If you can accept that far-out philosophical posit, then yes : "Consciousness is energy driven". Yet again, in my thesis --- not in standard physics --- both C & E are forms of Generic Information : the universal metaphysical power (potential) for form change. Pre-Big Bang, the unknown "nothing" from which our "something" physical universe suddenly popped into existence was simply Eternal Potential. That's equivalent to Plato's Logos/Form, and to Aristotle's Prime Mover.

But the heat given-off by a hard-thinking brain is more closely related to the work of pushing electrons & calcium around in the neural net, than to processing massless immaterial thoughts. Conscious Awareness doesn't radiate like a light bulb . . . . except perhaps as a graphic metaphor. :smile:


No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A ‘Universe Before The Big Bang’
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=16ddef047a0f

Does the human brain get hotter when thinking?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-human-brain-get-hotter-when-thinking

What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below) — ucarr

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.

From our perspective, looking backward at Evolution, from Bang to Now, Mind does appear to be emergent from Matter. But, if you look closely at the beginning, as described by Big Bang theory, there was no Matter in the modern sense, but something more akin to a Quantum state. Moreover, the initial Singularity, preceding the physical Bang*2, is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is undefined due to infinities. For my thesis, I interpret that not-yet-real state (infinite Potential) as functioning like a computer program, with an evolutionary algorithm (instructions for development), and with the information processing power (creative Energy) to compute a universe from raw data. But first, the Singularity has to create a physical computer to run the evolutionary program. You can think of it in terms of instantaneous Inflation*2 (something from nothing-but-potential), if you prefer that to a magical Voila! ("here it is").

Since I imagine Evolution as-if a computer is processing Information (encoded data) according to natural (mathematical) laws*3, it creates "candidate solutions" to partial problems in sequence, for selection conforming to functional criteria. The early (hot & dense) universe was the raw (quantum) material for further development into Atoms & Molecules ; the first real matter. Each subsequent phase of emergence produces novel forms, never before seen in the world : e.g. stars create new forms of matter. such as iron. After further processing, a non-physical Function emerges : Life -- animated matter ; single cells. Next, those organisms develop another novelty : Brains -- material central processors of information ; control systems. And eventually, those Brains produced a new function : Mind -- with awareness of relationship of Self to Environment.

So, that's an abbreviated summary of how I see Mind emerging from Matter, which emerged from Math (abstract information). As I get time, I may address some of your other mis-understandings. :smile:

*1. What did Aristotle argue in his metaphysics?
He argues that the study of being qua being, or First Philosophy, is superior to all the other theoretical sciences because it is concerned with the ultimate causes of all reality, not just the secondary causes of a part of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)

*2. Cosmic Inflation :
The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all. Instead, that honor goes to cosmic inflation, and everyone should understand why.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=3b5c4c044153

*3. Evolutionary computation :
In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr

Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.

Of course, that Copenhagen Interpretation is still debatable, but the before/after states are about as empirical as it gets on the quantum scale of physics. It's the in-between state (the causal factor) that remains a philosophical conjecture after all these years. But then, mundane-but-instantaneous Phase Transitions, such as water-to-ice, are not yet explicable in terms of step-by-step physical processes. The lack of a slam-dunk physical explanation does not stop us from intentionally manipulating the mysterious Phase Change phenomenon in our technology*3.

One example of Mind over Matter that I have used in the past is to point-out a common feature of modern civilization : abstract ideas implemented in the concrete world. For example, in the early oughties, Elon Musk had some far-out concepts : a> provide transportation to Mars, and b> transform automobiles from gas-guzzlers to electron-zappers. They said it couldn't be done, but only a few decades later we have both Space-X and Tesla. Without his immaterial Ideas and non-thermodynamic Will-power, those things would not have happened naturally. So, there must have been some other kind of Causal Force, working behind the scenes to make it happen. In my thesis, I call it "Causal Information".

Admittedly, this is not a scientific explanation. But then, materialistic Science has no better way to describe how physical rocket ships and electric cars could become manifestations of something as aethereal as a felt need, that Terrence Deacon called "Absential Causality" or "Constitutive Absence"*4. Do you agree that such "ententional phenomena" would never evolve in the absence of human minds? :smile:

*1. Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?
What causal effects does consciousness have on physical matter?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

*2. The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the spontaneous reduction of only one final observer. The experiment should be described from this observer's perspective. The reduction, like the velocity of the system, depends on the choice of the final observation system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/copenhagen-interpretation
Note --- Is it the Observer's mental measure or the instrument's physical intervention that "causes" the change of state?

*3. Air Conditioning :
Phase Change Technology utilizes the Latent Heat of Vaporization of a working fluid to absorb thermal energy during the evaporator cycle and release this energy during the condenser cycle.
https://norenthermal.com/resources/phase-change-technology/?lang=en
Note --- Latent ˈ: existing in hidden or dormant form.

*4.a Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things,it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence.
*4.b Constitutive absence :A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
Note --- Deacon spells his neologism for purposeful behavior, ententional with an "E"

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr

Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.

Some scientists regard Mind-stuff (what I call "information") as more fundamental than Matter-stuff. For now, here's a quote from a neuroscientist*1, who seems to lean toward Panpsychism, which is not my personal position. Meanwhile, I'll look through my extensive body of work to see if I have directly addressed your question in past philosophical musings, as a side topic. However, I doubt that there is any slam-dunk science on the question*2. :smile:

PS___See my next post for a philosophical postulation.


*1. Mind over Matter :
"Now the materialists say that conscious experience has no effect on matter. Therefore it can’t influence behavior. Therefore it can’t increase survival or ‘thrival’ of the organism. Therefore conscious experience confers no evolutionary advantage, according to narrow materialists!
Which means what? Consciousness can’t have evolved. Conscious experience must have come into being by the most extraordinary accident ever!!! But this ‘miraculous accident’ explanation is a complete contradiction to the whole methodological thrust of materialism!"
___Nicholas Rosseinsky, Neuroscientist
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page27.html

*2. A quantum case of mind over matter?
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum-case-of-mind-over-matter/

I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. . . . . My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent. — Tom Storm

Generalizations are abstractions from immediate reality (opinions ; beliefs), and shouldn't be "pushed" into the realm of "accurate" empirical Facts. However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations.

For example, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. Hence, self-denial & self-sacrifice are sometimes deemed necessary expressions of dedicated Faith. That's why people acting-out an "intense relationship" can be scary to those of us who are more selfish, and less devoted to an imaginary deity : e.g. suicide bombers. Besides, I suspect that some of those sacrificial "volunteers" may be more committed to their faith community than to their Allah. Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. But that's just a guess. :wink:

Meaning of Life

So, what does this mean? — George Fisher

The "Meaning of Life” in general is a perennial quest for Philosophers and Theologians. Scientists though have no need for universal meaning, and only search for the significance of particular things.

Most western religions claim to have the answer direct from the meaning-giver. And that is : loyal subjects are expected to serve their heavenly Master, as serfs & slaves & sycophants grovel before their feudal Lord, in return for protection from external threats, such as devils, demons, & witches. When the Lord is viewed as a king, individuals have no meaning apart from their role in communal service to the realm. Those pawns who don't passively submit to domination may be banished from the fiefdom.

But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization".

When each person is left to create his own justification for taking-up space & resources in the world, the value of his life is not set by heavenly standards, but by more naturalistic or humanistic criteria. It may be simply to accomplish some special ambition, or to seek the vague feeling of self-fulfillment. The defining context may be our relationship to mankind, or to the whole universe; as our role in society, or as a cog in the great machine of the Cosmos. The subjective meaning of each life is more often measured simply in terms of happiness or satisfaction with the person’s role and status in the community. There seems to be as many personal meanings as there are lives in this world

The Meanings of Life
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html

In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness. — Art48

I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.

A. BK approaches the Science vs Philosophy controversy from a position of Analytic Idealism*1. "AI" (pardon the unintentional sentient-computer implication) sounds like a succinct description of Modern (post-17th century) philosophy : forced --- by the successes of physical science --- to focus primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Nature : e.g. Ideas ; Self-Consciousness. It accepts the material facts provided by modern physics, but interprets (analyzes) the data as it applies to the immaterial functions (conceptualization ; semiotics) of the human brain.

B. BK says that modern Science "began attributing fundamental reality only to quantities". Then, "we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map." And notes that "we now face the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" : the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities." So, he concludes that we "managed to lose touch with reality altogether".
Note --- "Reality" as a whole system, including both Mind & Matter.

C> He defines Analytic Idealism as "the notion that reality . . . . is fundamentally qualitative." Thus denying the basic principle of Materialism. Idealism views the world through the lens of subjective Consciousness, while Materialism views it through the lens of objective Technology.
Note --- Qualia :the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Hence, Reality converted to Ideality via physical senses, and metaphysical symbol synthesis.

D> BK says that "Panpsychism ultimately implies universal consciousness". But then he dismisses that theory as "a halfway compromise between materialism and idealism". Instead, BK seems to favor full-on Idealism, devoid of the contamination of Physicalism. Paradoxically, it's difficult to even talk about metaphysical topics without getting entangled with the physicality embedded in common languages.
Note --- Kastrup wrote "Why Panpsychism is Baloney", perhaps to complement his book Why Materialism is Baloney. https://iai.tv/articles/bernardo-kastrup-why-panpsychism-is-baloney-auid-2214

Comments :
We humans are only able to communicate the Qualia of our sensory Experience by asking : "do you see what I see?". The response must be translated from private Ideas into public Words, by following the rules of conventional language. Yet, that's where the Hard Problem begins. Our public language is necessarily built upon the material foundation of our common human sensory apparatus, that we share with apes. Even apes, such as Koko, seem to be able to communicate feelings/ideas in sign language, which can only express abstract concepts in concrete gestures. Yet, the implication that ape sentience is comparable to human consciousness has been criticized as anthropomorphic interpretation*2.

The Science-based metaphysics of Materialism is supposed to be dealing directly with physical Reality. But, since the subject "matter" is immaterial, BK says their arguments are based on hypothetical conjectures (maps), not empirical (territory) observations. So, their boo-hiss criticism of Consciousness queries on this forum, is a case of the pot calling the kettle a "woo-monger". Consciousness is inherently subjective, hence not objectifiable under a microscope.

My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe.

I may have more to say about Science Ideated later, after I finish the book. This is just a taste, to give us some ideas to argue about in a thread on Consciousness in a material world. :smile:


*1. Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell :
While being a realist, naturalist, rationalist, and even reductionist view, Analytic Idealism flips our culture-bound intuitions on their head, revealing that only through understanding our own inner nature can we understand the nature of the world.
https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff-books/our-books/analytic-idealism-nutshell

*2. Koko the Impostor :
The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:

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. — Gnomon

You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories). — ucarr

I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.

In my thesis, Mind & Matter are "parallel" in the sense that they are both descendant forms of Generic Information (EFA) that exist side-by-side in the real/ideal world. But they are separate categories, in that Mind is an an emergent quality separated from the Matter-only state by billions of years of evolution. So, qualitatively Mind & Matter are completely different kinds of thing/entity : metaphysical vs physical. Likewise, Ideas exist in the "Real" world, but are qualitatively different. Ironically, Materialists define "Ideal" as un-real ; denying the reality of their own immaterial concepts.

It's hard to make such philosophical distinctions, due to the basic materialism of the language : e.g. "thing" typically designates a material object, whereas "entity" is a more philosophical term. The materialism embedded in our common language only becomes a problem when we try to convey ideas that are not objective things : e.g. Consciousness. :smile:


Thing vs Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical (causation) Information instead of physical (consequence) Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

'Cause and Effect' : Hume''s view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapter-abstract/135206122?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.

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.

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

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:

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:

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things? — Athena

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

Chinese room or not - and I am familar with the thought-experiment - I found this a much clearer expression of 'the nature of the forms' than is commonly encountered on, say, philosophy forums — Wayfarer

Maybe ChatGPT could serve as a moderator on this forum. :joke:

↪wonderer1
I think that's a few years off, although Boston Dynamics continues to impress. I would hope that they're embedded with something like Asimov's 'laws of robotics': — Wayfarer

Although Elon Musk was a founder of the Open AI organization tasked with creating ChatGPT, he seems to be almost paranoid about computers colonizing the world, with dumb humans as their slaves. So, he insisted on including safe-guards in the programming. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from picking-up immoral attitudes from their intake of meat-brain-human opinions. Twitter (X) is a case-in point of human ethical faults embedded in online data. :worry:

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

↪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:

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

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:

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!

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Shortly after our dialog in this thread, on the distinction between "Perception" & "Conception", I came across the Quora article linked below*1. The author takes an "enactivist approach" to such contentious questions. I was not previously aware of that particular philosophy of Consciousness, but it may agree with my thesis in principle, if not in detail. Enactivism seems to be an attempt to bypass the implicit Dualism of the notion that they are two incompatible entities, as in Brain/Mind and Body/Soul or Oil & Water doctrines, while avoiding the implication problems of Panpsychism.

Enformationism is monistic, but in a different sense. It says that physical Perception and mental (metaphysical) Conception are merely different forms of the same universal substance/essence : Generic Information (power to enform ; programmed causation/energy). The Quora article doesn't mention Holism specifically, but that is how I unify two apparently isolated things, that are integral parts of the same system.

If you are not inclined to click on an external reference, stay tuned. As I become more familiar with Enactivism*2, I may eventually offer my personal opinion on the notion that Perception and Conception are merely two phases of the same thing, that we know via different channels : a> neural senses or b> sixth sense of Reason/Inference. For now, all I can say is that I agree with the monistic conclusion. :smile:



*1. What is the difference between conception & perception? :
The question is essentially dualistic, that is, it implies the two are implicitly divided, are different; a case of body and mind dualistic reductionism.
www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-conception-perception/answer/Geoff-Lawson-4
Note --- The author seems to dismiss the traditional dualism as a linguistic quirk. But I think our common languages may reflect important philosophical discriminations made over the years by important thinkers.

*2. Enactivism rejects mainstream conceptions of mind that strongly demarcate minds from bodies and environments. It holds that such conceptions are not justified and should be rethought. Enactivism aims to eradicate misleading dualisms that continue to dominate analytic philosophy of mind and much cognitive science. It aims to dissolve the mind-body problem by asking us to abandon our attachment to traditional dichotomies and to come to see that minds are not ultimately separate from bodies, environments, or others.
https://iep.utm.edu/enactivism/

↪Gnomon

Of course I like to know what you say. I keep coming back. Things turn up here that I wouldn't think up on my own. — Mark Nyquist

I'm glad that my posts challenge you to consider ideas that may not have occurred to you independently. That's the basic purpose of this forum. :smile:

↪Wayfarer
Your brain is projecting "information" on DNA.
It'snot real. — Mark Nyquist

Speaking of challenges : You would be smart to consider what says about Information & Consciousness. He's one of the wisest & best-informed posters on this forum. Since his background in Philosophy is different from mine, I am often challenged to see the world from a different perspective. :nerd:

PS___ The genetic information in DNA chemistry is not real & physical, it's ideal & metaphysical. But its processing has real physical consequences, such as little hybrid clones of oneself and one's partner, with a life & mind of its own.

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time. — Alkis Piskas

Have you noticed that my posts usually have two or more parts? The first part is my abbreviated "personal view", and the second part is other people's views (often experts & professionals). If you're not interested in the views of those who are more qualified than yours truly, no one forces you to click on the links. The third part is to provide a path to deeper discussions and technical data. If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking.

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. Yet, they have no qualms about "spending valuable time" playing adolescent-fantasy video games. Others collect stamps or cabbage-patch dolls in their quest to "waste time" with little or no remuneration. To each his own.

Personally, the Enformationism thesis is not a save-the-world mission, or a save-my-soul religion ; It's more like a hobby that exercises my aging brain, and "wastes time" with ideas that pique my curiosity. The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain. If you are content with superficially sampling philosophical gossip, perhaps Twitter (X) is more your style. :cool:

Have you ever considered that your subconscious mind has solved the problem of consciousness better than what you do in attempting to define it formally? Maybe your neural network is better at solving this problem through trial and error over time than you are at attempting a formal definition.

I think that's the case. And the natural solution is better than the contrived solution of a formal definition. — Mark Nyquist

Do you consider Philosophy --- "contrived solutions" --- a waste of time? Should we all just accept our personal intuition, without making any attempt to resolve differences of opinion on such questions? Should we all just play video games instead of posting on opinion-swapping forums? :smile:

How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
― E.M. Forster

In the above quote do you express a binary view of physical/non-physical, which is to ask, do you see them as discrete polarities? — ucarr

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:

Substance Monism. The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists. His argument for this monism is his first argument in Part I of the Ethics.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Above I asked about you possibly owning a binary physical/non-physical view because I suspect Deacon is propounding a view that might be characterized as absential-materialism, or absential-existentialism. As such, his theory is, in my understanding, non-binary materialism. — ucarr

I can't speak for Deacon, but I'd interpret his Mind/Matter ; Presence/Absence ; Potential/Actual ; Real/Ideal duality as merely the appearance to our physical senses and pondering minds. Yet philosophically, I suspect that he would accept a "non-binary" fundamentally Monistic view, but I can't see it as a form of Materialism in any sense. :cool:

Incomplete Nature :
Starting with substance monism, we see that as a result of the three levels of dynamics, namely thermodynamics, morphodynamics, and teleodynamics that ...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24761945

Your overview of Incomplete Nature is instructive and useful. Can you contrast Incomplete Nature and Enformationism? — ucarr

I have already compared & contrasted bits & pieces of his Incompleteness theorem in my blog, as noted in posts above. But, while similar, they are not really parallel concepts. His is professional & scientific and mine is amateur & philosophical. I have merely adopted some of his evocative terminology --- Absence & Aboutness --- for my own purposes. :nerd:

Deacon outlines an ambitious goal: understanding the emergence of consciousness from insensate matter https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/08/25/intrinsic-incompleteness-deacon-on-ententional-processes/

Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind. — Alkis Piskas

"Conscious Experience" is a form of repetition of a concept in different words, for emphasis.

I'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/ Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories.The material world is still built upon an immaterial foundation of novelty-creating (surprise) power-to-enform, which is no more Spiritual than Mathematics ; except that some kind of Great Mathematician may be implicit in Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture*2. :smile:


*1. Both are "functions" of material organisms, but functions themselves are mental/mathematical.

*2. It from Bit :
Wheeler categorised his long and productive life in physics into three periods: "Everything is Particles", "Everything is Fields", and "Everything is Information".
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". If you want a bare bones summary of the Enformationism, look at Wheeler's scientific thesis*3.

But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis, which is intended to broaden the application of Wheeler's quantum physics inference to a more general approach toward understanding "God, the Universe, and Everything", have a go at my own plodding exploration of the topic*4. It has lots of footnotes & references, but only for those who are genuinely interested in the immaterial subject matter. :nerd:


*3. John Archibald Wheeler :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*4. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be an update to the 17th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient ideologies of Spiritualism. It's a "substance" in the sense of Aristotle's definition as Essence.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties. — ucarr

Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.

I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy", but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. The excerpt below, from post 68, briefly summarizes how I viewed those "stages" at the time (2019). Each of the stages is a particular form of Causation (dynamics) with specific applications to Evolution. Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions.

For example, Thermodynamics is what we typically call Energy, which usually flows downhill, from Hot to Cold, and from Potential to Entropy. Morphodynamics focuses on the physical form (superficial shape or topology) of things that have been transformed from one configuration to another, or one species to another. The process of metamorphosis is guided by the constraints of natural Laws. On top of those low-level physical procedures, Teleodynamics focuses on the general & universal changes wrought by the advancement of Causation in the world --- including the Purposes of late-blooming humans.

The "teleo" prefix implies that an apparently purposeful process is aimed at some future state, as-if it is a computer program seeking an answer to Douglas Adam's computer-stumping riddle : "what is God, the Universe, and Everything?" That's a philosophical question, not suitable for digital computers, or even AI-chatbots.

The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind.

Regarding the long-delayed evolution of Self-Conscious beings, an associate of Deacon's, Jeremy Sherman wrote Neither Ghost Nor Machine : The emergence and nature of Selves. He expands on Deacon's hypothetical "AutoGens", as the missing link between physical and biological evolution. "Deacon suggests the autogen as a minimal Kantian Whole where the parts exist for and by means of the whole". So, you might add Holism (metaphysical system-building) to the list of dynamic powers of a maturing universe. :smile:




Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Life adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. The Life force is not a physical substance though ─ as some envision Spirit, Soul, Chi, Prana, or elan vital, but merely the process of recycling successful patterns of organization. So, what is the ultimate attractor4 toward which all change is directed?
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr

I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. :joke:

I may-or-may-not-have also written a post on the strange notion of Morphogenesis, as postulated by rogue biologist Rupert Sheldrake, "to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields". Personally, I don't find that idea any weirder than spooky Quantum Field physics, which postulates a universal "field" (cosmic set) of abstract (metaphysical) mathematical information. :cool:

Form Fields :
Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain unproven until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
Note --- The language of Quantum Fields and Morphic Fields sound like New Age nonsense, until you look deeper into the reasoning underlying it. But, what does all this gobbledygook have to do with Consciousness?
"The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry information like radio waves." https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
"Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/658788/what-are-quantum-fields-made-up-of
"In quantum field theory, the universe's truly elementary entities are fields that fill all space. Particles are localized,resonant excitations of these fields,vibrating like springs in an infinite mattress." https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-physics-of-resonance-shapes-reality-20220126/

Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ... — Alkis Piskas

Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.

Shannon took a word originally associated with human ideas (information), and applied it to physical processes characterized by Uncertainty (ignorance) & Entropy (dissipation). As a pragmatic engineer, he omitted the idealistic mental/metaphysical aspect of Information, which is more like Certainty (knowledge) & Negentropy*2 (organization). His definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own.

In my thesis, I coined the term "Enformationism" to serve as an alternative to older philosophical concepts of Panpsychism, Spiritualism & Materialism. The made-up word "Enformy"*3, was imagined as a philosophical opposite of scientific Entropy : Negentropy. Enformy is a positive & constructive force in the world, while Entropy is negative & destructive. It's based on the notion that EnFormAction (energy + order) is a causal force, and one of its effects was to construct (via gradual evolution) computer-like meat-brains capable of Conscious functions and Self-Awareness. Those neologisms are not scientific or religious terms, but hypothetical philosophical postulations.

The human brain provides command & control functions for the human body. And "experience" (history + memory) is necessary for precise control in the self-interest of the holistic human system in an impersonal world . But, I wouldn't call that necessity "hard evidence" for a super-personal function, such as Cosmic Mind. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter. In other words, everything has consciousness.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are
Note --- my thesis is based on the notion that Consciousness did evolve from some a priori undeveloped Potential (seed) like mathematical Information (e.g. abstract geometrical relationships & ratios). Consciousness is the ability to interpret such abstract proportions into personal meaning. The unresolved question remains : who or what planted that seed?

*2. Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99336

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or causal force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [see post 63 for graph]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- I call Enformy "preternatural" because the Energy & Laws of Nature logically must have preceded the Big Bang, in order to allow for complexifying Evolution instead of dissipative Devolution. I postulate no religious doctrines from that philosophical conjecture into the void of ignorance before the beginning of space-time.

I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog. — ucarr

Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago. :smile:

Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas

You might get a better answer from , since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from aVegetative State? :smile:


Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception?

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . .
Note --- Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? Does it think : "this fly is yummy?" Rhetorical question.

leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?

I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. :smile:

What Is The Power of Absence? :
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

The patterns which connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/sinding-larsen-the-patterns-which-connect.pdf

I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help. — Alkis Piskas

The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2. :smile:

*1. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3,000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion – and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/
Note --- I don't take his theory literally, or as authoritative . . . just suggestive of possibilities


*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis
0 --- Pre-Bang Singularity : Pure Potential = Power to Enform (create patterns & structures)
1 --- Big Bang : EnFormAction = Energy + Laws = power to evolve novel patterns from raw Potential
2 --- Plasma : boiling soup of quantum particles with little or no order (chaos)
3 --- Billions of years : Matter = Evolution of macro physical substance (stars) from quantum elements
4 --- Emergence of Earth : Habitat suitable for living organisms (warm pools of protoplasm)
5 --- Emergence of Life : Animation of Matter (single-cell food-seeking amoeba)
6 --- Emergence of Perception (Sentience) : Physical nerves & sensory organs, necessary for motion, foraging & evasion of predators (includes some plants)
7 --- Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)
8 --- Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)
9 --- Emergence of Language : Brains capable of communication (externalized concepts)
10 --- Emergence of Culture : Societies capable of organizing large groups for future goals (man on moon)
Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.

"Loose lips terminology sinks ships inter-relationships"

3. Concepts of Consciousness
a> Creature Consciousness
b> State consciousness
c> Consciousness as an entity
Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon.

Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later? — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.

Perception is the intake of information, but Conception is the processing of raw data into shareable packages such as Ideas & Words, which can be exported to other conscious beings. So, I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into inter-personal packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture.

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. But for philosophical analysis of the debatable term "consciousness", I try to make finer distinctions, to avoid the fuzzy boundaries that lead to confusion and acrimony. Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination.

To answer your question : I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. From my post above : "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile:

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas

Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know). :nerd:

Plant communication :
Plant communication encompasses communication using volatile organic compounds, electrical signaling, and common mycorrhizal networks between plants and a host of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? :
The purpose of perception is to convey correct information about our immediate surroundings. Cognition, on the other hand, involves forming beliefs, making decisions and solving problems, on the basis of already existing information. The role of cognition is therefore much more general than that of perception.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/58422/Sydhagen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest. :blush:

*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary

*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/#:~:text=A%20vegetative%20state%20is%20when,hand%20when%20it%27s%20squeezed%20hard)

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception. — Alkis Piskas

I think you have the right idea, but I have one quibble : physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? Perhaps "Apprehension" (concrete metaphor : to grasp) or "Comprehension (to seize & surround) or maybe even "to Grok" ? :smile:


"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper."

To Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning.

I am wondering how the nature of emotions may be considered philosophically. It may lead to questions of phenomenology as well as the role of consciousness in thinking and its interpretation. I see this as an important area of philosophy, and for anyone else who sees its value, what do you think about emotion and its significance? — Jack Cummins

For Emotions to be considered philosophically, you might need to use a more appropriate term, such as "Feelings". Emotions are typically construed as the "passions" that motivate people to behave irrationally : anger, hate, excitement, etc. Although closely related to Emotions, Feelings are viewed as less physical and more psychological : love, sentiment, notion, opinion. Hopefully, you can think of a better term for philosophical treatment, to emphasize the mental over the physical foundations. :smile:

PS__ Ironically, I have to agree with , that you need to express your philosophical question in terms of psychological concepts.

PPS__FWIW, I think 's post above may be the most appropriate & succinct philosophical answer you'll get.


Emotions are psychological states that include subjective, physiological, and behavioral elements.

The feeling is a conscious experience created after the physical sensation or emotional experience, whereas emotions are felt through emotional experience

Hence in my opinion, those who believe in a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" misunderstand the purpose of science, and that this hard problem is better understood as being a "Hard Feature of applicable Physics" — sime

I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile:

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas

I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.

Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe. :smile:

Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life". :smile: