That the material we find ourselves in is a construct, an artificial substrate, or vehicle enabling the appearance/experience of a being/s. Being artificial, their existence is artificial and when they cease to be, what ceases to be was not real, but a construct.
Likewise this is also the case for the soul (for want of a better word), but in a more subtle way. This is a simplified version of the idea. — Punshhh

Enabling experience being the central point?

I would agree with this. The words that I would use is that our mentality is constructed entirely from the integration of information surrounding us and the data inherited via DNA, and our physicality entirely from DNA information entangling energy and matter. The physicality enabling the mentality. So that we have a self at all is doubtful, since all that we are is composed of elements outside of ourselves - hereditary data, energy, materials, and information. The largely, though not completely, constant but perhaps immortal element is DNA information, this varies among species, and has a myriad of expressions.
However, there is a basic strip of DNA data shared by all of life, and I've come to believe it contains the bias to be. What I can not get over is that a bias is emotional information, and it is emotional information that creates consciousness. So in the end, it seems, that consciousness just wants to experience. It seems not fussed about what it experiences. The experience of an amoeba is as good as that of a human being. It seems to want to be in superposition of experience perhaps, or something like that.

Erwin Schrödinger : “There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.”

think we can interpret this as saying that it's precisely the patterns that can be said to significantly exist, rather than matter without form. — jamalrob

For living creatures the pattern that persists would be RNA and DNA - expressing their patterns in a myriad of different ways. I'm not suggesting that they are a constant, just a good illustration of the pattern.

According to the theory, you can not be destroyed because, as a pattern, you don't exist.
I can buy that, but my explanation is probably quite different to yours. — Punshhh

I would be interested in your explanation?

Your first and last sentences here are examples of confusing dimensional levels. I recognise that you don’t see the world this way, but this is where you fail to see that your theory is an over-simplification, so it’s worth getting your head around it. — Possibility

Dimensionality is a great way to contemplate relational structures of information, but at the end of the day you still have to reduce your deliberations to a symbiology of some kind. Consciousness integrates information and reduces it to an emotional symbol. This creates , from your perspective, affect. But I have a more detailed understanding where each instance of consciousness results in a corresponding emotional symbol - each instance of consciousness has its quale. From another part of the forum, If each quale were a note, then when strung together they would cause a tune. This tune describes how you feel about your reality. It is an emotional understanding. If it is unpleasant, you act to make it more pleasant, If it is pleasant you enjoy the ride. This is what causes behavior.

Reducing complexity is what happens at the cellular level also. Complexity is reduced to a symbiology that is DNA. Likewise consciousness is a reduction of complexity, an integration of information, a sort of biological black hole that integrates information to a symbol that is ultimately understood as an emotion. Each instance has its own emotion. That is how we know it is unique.

You keep constructing the result of DNA information in your mind as if it already exists. — Possibility

Are you saying it doesn't exist. Are you saying that molecules are not formed from amino acids. That information processing is not going on? That there is no mind making choices and decisions at the cellular level? It is a difficult conclusion to make - I admit, but not because of the facts of the matter, but because of the paradigm we inhabit.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You have been arguing:

1. Everything is information. (Monism)
2. Emotion is not information. (Dualism) — Possibility

Emotion is information in consciousness. But it is not something reducible to information absolutely. Information can hint at it, but not dissect and describe and convey it absolutely. The emotional charge at one consciousness can not be reduced to information absolutely such that it ca be felt equally at another consciousness, in the same way that a concept can be described and understood. Emotion is information that has an affect on a consciousness, so it acts more like a force.

Saying DNA is the dominant brain would be like saying the bible is the ‘dominant brain’ of Christianity, so to speak. — Possibility

That is not a bad analogy. But I said it was probably not the dominant brain. However that there is mind at the cellular level is without doubt. You have described it as "molecular-level information". So we have information, and there is a good argument for emotion, and they are the two ingredients of consciousness - of course it is entangled into matter. Specifically, entangled into DNA, which is a symbolic representation of information, much like the sentence I'm writing. So we have abstract thought at the cellular level.

There would be an underlying quantum layer, but I don't want to go there for now, as it is too theoretical.
The biological data - that information, and emotion, and abstract thought are present, is not theoretical. That we are blind to it is a hangover from materialism, I believe.

Again, I like your relational explanation of things, but its not how I experience the world. It is how you experience the world. Both views work, but they are different expressions of consciousness, and I suspect underlying these expressions is a simple algorithm that we both posses, that expresses itself in a myriad of different ways, through life and life's activities.

Do you include your own consciousness within that consciousness, or in external relation to it? — Possibility

My own consciousness is the extracellular consciousness of the cellular master consciousness, and I am emotionally driven. That is the logic of it. So make what you will of that. Just to clarify - I am a very normal functional person. :meh:

Emotion IS information - there is no ‘as well as’ and we need to stop making this distinction. It isn’t helpful. — Possibility

If emotion is information, then you should be able to inform me exactly how you feel, such that I could feel it also, but you cannot for the same reason you couldn't describe red. Information and emotion exist in consciousness, emotion entangles information, but it is only information that exists in transit from one consciousness to another. Perhaps it is better described as biased information, and we can to some extent discern the bias. It is biased because it is entangled by emotion.

Emotion is a subjective quality that arises in relation to integrated information. Every thought has a corresponding quale, that orients us in our personally constructed reality. The whole conscious experience gets reduced to an emotional symbol representing the experience. Once we are in possession of the emotional symbol ( quale ), we understand the implications of the information we have integrated. My quale would be located on a point on the PPS, but yours would perhaps be a multidimensional PPS. Regardless, it is at this point that we have an experience, that we take to be reality.

So what fundamental difference can be between us and another ''superior'' creature? — Eugen

Ha, I wish I knew. I cannot predict such a thing unfortunately. But the rate of change of technology and progress generally is ever increasing, and we will have to cope with those changes. My interest is consciousness, and currently the world operates through a materialistic paradigm, and I wonder how it would be if it operated through an idealistic paradigm.

I simply don't see another extra-step. If the reality is infinitely complex and complicated, we can already state that, so in a way, we comprehend that. — Eugen

In my view, reality is something we create in our minds. What if we became fully cognizant of that, and had greater control of that?

Too many properties = no identity - this is a complicated one — Eugen

Since we are wildly speculating:
There are so many identities in the world and throughout history. These are all expressions of consciousness, and they are endlessly variable and open ended. They are the paradigms through which individuals operate. But If consciousness is fundamental, then all of these identities are false, as their true nature is consciousness, not the identity it assumes. Can you imagine such a world?

The hard problem of consciousness is how do you get from matter to experience — Eugen

I have my own theory on this, so I am quite biased when considering the theories of others. Hoffman has recently stated that he can model consciousness mathematically, so in my view, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. He can not model emotions, and from the Philosophical Zombie argument, it is emotions that create consciousness. The hard problem, I believe, is to answer why we have them, as emotion is the force that creates an experience, which we take to be reality, thus driving behavior.

But in Hoffman's theory, the hard problem disappears. — Eugen

Perhaps you have a better understanding of it, but as far as I am aware he still cannot explain the qualia of experience, what its for, why we have it.

So I guess that the ability of abstraction is a fundamental one, not only a matter of quantity. — Eugen

Yes. It is something still fuzzy in my mind, but it seems that the ability to reduce complex sensual information to a single emotional symbol representing a complex of information, is abstract thought, and this might be fundamental, but perhaps not limited to humanity.

But is it also qualitative? Do they have something ''extra'' — Eugen

Yes again. A paradigm shift is like a change of sanity, or like enlightenment, so results in a completely new way of thinking, and so possibilities arise that were previously impossible.
There is already good evidence that different ways of thinking can change aspects of brain structure, from studies on Nepalese monks, so perhaps the process just continues. New thinking leads to new brains, which lead to still new thoughts, etc. :smile:

Oh I see. I agree with some of Hoffman's statements, but there is a lot I do not agree with, so I haven't studied his theory in depth. In my view, a theory of consciousness that dose not answer the hard problem, is not likely to be the correct theory. Of course neuroscience may discover more information that would prove me wrong.

Your question is not a simple one, as a quale may be an abstract thought - a symbol representing something more complex - and this would open up a whole new can of worms.

Is abstraction the only difference between us and other animals. I don't think so. In my view, communication is the main difference. Humanity deposits new ideas and understanding into a collective consciousness, which everybody then draws from. In this way knowledge is distributed and grows over time.

As knowledge and information grows, the paradigm shifts - allowing new perspectives and connections to be made. This would be a never ending process, in my opinion. It means we can never know everything ever. Gödel's incompleteness theorem would agree with this view, I think.

If this is the correct view and consciousness and knowledge is infinite, then for all we know, there may not be much difference between our knowledge and that of an ant.

Unfortunately I can not give you any sources on Descartes that you can not google yourself. However I do have a short theory of consciousness that argues consciousness right down to microbial life. It and the discussions that follow might give you some ideas about a line of argument.

I noticed one of your links cites Gödel's incompleteness theorem as proof of solipsism, but it is actually an excellent proof of its impossibility. Gödel's theorem states that any axiomatic system requires something outside the system to justify elements within the system. So this would be mathematical proof that a solipsistic consciousness is not a closed / complete system. :smile:

I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know? — Darkneos

The burden of proof for Solipsism, is to prove that like minded people and a real world do not exist. Good luck with that ! What proof do you have?

Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people.

Much of the world we interact with is today anthropocentric, so it is easy to forget our biological nature, and to concentrate on information relating to intellect, and so believe the intellect is all that constitutes what we are. You have taken to heart some information written by another human, that says that no other humans exist. Can you see how flawed the logic is?

Solipsism is not the default. Idealism is, I believe. Idealism acknowledges the privacy of the mind , but also acknowledges the relational nature of existence - that other like minded people and a real world exist.

The DNA ‘in action’ is part of the relational structure in a living system. Without this relation, the process would not occur, and the DNA would meet none of the requirements for life — Possibility

I totally agree with you in regard to the relational aspect of everything. My philosophy was weak in this area, and this conversation has helped to strengthen my understanding, so thank you.
Yes DNA is alive as part of a system. It is probably not the dominant brain of the system, it is capable of creating messenger RNA, and they, in their many guises, are seeming to be the epigenetics of the system. They can transcribe from DNA, but also reverse transcribe, to alter DNA.

I do agree that whatever constitutes your concept of ‘+emotion=’ underlies the very structure of life and also enables consciousness, but I disagree with how you constitute this concept only from what is unreasonable within a system — Possibility

I concentrate on the fundamentals of a system to try and unentangle the qualitative ( emotional ) and quantitative information. There are only tiny little straws on offer to do this with. Thus far microbes respond to painful stimuli, the selfish gene, the bias to be, and gradient tracking - all suggest emotions at the fundamental level. We know information, energy and matter are present at this level, we know there is life, but for consciousness we need emotion to be present at this level, and I think there is a strong case. I am convinced , at least.

Life arose with the potential for consciousness — Possibility

Relational aspects of life are well established. Once emotion at the fundamental level is established, then we start to get an understanding of how consolidation or a nucleus to relational self organization forms. That qualia cause self organization is a good bet. Dose qualia = emotion? If so, and this is my understanding, then it is consciousness that emerges as self organization, not life. Life is a concept that obscures this understanding, and I wish I could erase it from common usage, as it is redundant and makes my case difficult to explain. Consciousness arises as a system of self organization - this is what you are seeing in those cellular animations. An extremely sophisticated system of self organization. This system of self organization is common to all of life, and as we come to understand it better, we must attribute its spectacular complexity, to either god, or a consciousness.

most molecular structures don’t form living organisms and most living organisms don’t form a ‘self’. — Possibility

The way I understand it is - all living organisms form a self. Forming a self is fundamental to self organization.

DNA as a molecular structure is biased to be ONLY in relation to a living system. Otherwise, it is biased to NOT BE. Your answer is ‘to be’ because you only relate to the question as a living system. But objectively speaking, DNA as a conceptually isolated molecular structure is indifferent, and at the most fundamental level of existence, any answer to the question of ‘to be or not to be?’ is random. — Possibility

Yes, DNA can only exist in a living system, and is biased to be. Fundamentally it is biased to be, as the universe is biased to be, so all of the component parts of the universe in turn are biased to be. So it would seem emotion is fundamental as well as information. This is how I understand Panpsychism.

But in regard to limits, how would my analogy ant-man would stand in his view? — Eugen

I imagine his view would be that your analogy is correct. The notion that we are at the apex of knowledge is a view claimed many times in history, and it has always been proven to be false, so I don't see why this wont continue to be the case.

It seems that you are asking is consciousness limited, and the answer would be that consciousness is only limited by consciousness itself, so it is unlimited.

The best justification I've heard for this came from Donald Hoffman, who applied Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, with the result that there is always something outside the system which is required to justify things within the system. So this suggests infinite consciousness. :starstruck:

:up: you must be a football fan.

I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. — Darkneos

How were you born? who brought you up? who did you play with? But the best proof is when two people get together and they become greater then their sum. Such as going to the football and becoming part of the crowd. That others exist and you are part of the crowd is palpable. So go to the football and feel it for yourself, and put this silly nonsense to rest.

I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing. — Darkneos

Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be.

I think I’m starting get a picture of how you’re viewing this. — Possibility

No I'm afraid we are miles apart.

So in the end, it’s pointless arguing about whether or not DNA is ‘alive’ in a discussion about consciousness, because the +relation= in the equation DNA+relation=life needs to be expanded out if you hope to relate consolidated DNA to the equation: life+emotion=consciousness. — Possibility

The issue with whether DNA is alive or not revolves around whether it is biased to be. The below video shows DNA in action. It is indeed alive and wiggling, and doing its stuff, much like a queen bee in the center of a hive, with RNAs tending to it, and epigenetics coordinating the whole show. It is alive and biased to be, you have admitted previously that a bias to be is central to life. DNA is central to life also. As per Richard Dawkins's Selfish gene, and my argument that a bias exists centrally to consciousness / self organization, and a bias, and selfishness are emotions, thus emotion is shown to be fundamental.

There is no such thing as a p-zombie gene - this is an example of a false binary. — Possibility

Exactly! I was using it as an expression of something that that could not create consciousness. As apposed to a selfish / biased gene, which is essential in establishing a self around which self organization can take place. Thus consciousness and life arose together. But for consciousness to exist emotion has to be present, and in DNA it is present as a bias to be, or a selfishness that creates the self, as the nucleus of self organization.

DNA has the following options:
1. Biased to be
2. indifferent to be.
3. Random about being
4 biased to not be.

Which of these options do you think it is? Which option would natural selection favour? Whether this is a choice DNA makes, or is something shaped by external forces, is of no consequence. This is the fundamental information shared by all of life that we are talking about. Look at the world around you, every niche is filled with life. Please engage with and answer this question before we go further. It is an easy question to answer, in my opinion. I simply ask myself - to be or not to be, and I know the answer. I don't need to rationalize anything or build a theory around it, I don't need to think about it at all. It is a bias that exists within me, and my DNA.

I couldn't believe the guy could stand back and film his octopus friend being attacked by a shark. I switched off at that point.

The concept ‘information’, for instance, can refer to the process (relation) as well as the result (consolidation). But if ‘information is fundamental’, then which of these are we referring to? And which of these is ‘emotion’? — Possibility

Fundamentally everything is information. If we strip the matter from the universe , it is just information interacting with information, but the information differentiates through consolidation, and for that to happen there has to be a bias / self interest around which self organization can take place. So central to the zones of self organization there is emotion, in the form of a biased self - in animate and inanimate matter. So emotion is the central element of self organization, as best I understand it. Consolidation could not occur without a central bias to form around. It would not form around an indifference, and a self disinterest would be a repulsive force, whilst a bias to be is an attractive, gravity like force.

This dose not exclude relation. Zones of consolidation still have to relate to the information surrounding them, and at the same time consolidate in order to have a self, so its a balancing act. To be a self there has to be differentiation, or selfishness, but I agree with you entirely that this would be meaningless without relating to the surrounding information. Zones of consolidation occur, but they themselves are part of a greater whole, which they form from, and which may indeed create them, and certainly which they cannot exist without.

What is to be said for the foreign tissue cells themselves? — Benj96

This is called graft vs host disease, from memory. The graft mounts an attack on the host / organ recipient.

What does that have to do with it??? The truth is the truth. Emotion, bias etc are immaterial. — david plumb

I am with you brother, but not everybody is and for complicated reasons as is evidenced by this thread.

No, DNA is information for living. There’s a difference. DNA by itself is a biochemical molecular structure - its capacity for life is purely relational, in the same way that energy’s material capacity is purely relational. Saying that DNA is alive is like saying that energy is directly observable - you’re referring to the capacity of a relational process as if it is the result. — Possibility

Come on, is your arm alive? Is your heart alive? Are you alive? Because according to your argument you are not. This is a surprise argument from you. What dose not depend on relation for its existence?

DNA is indeed alive as part of a whole living system, just as you are alive as part of the biosphere and information that surrounds you. DNA is alive and indeed immortal, or at least the basic instruction set shared by all of life is immortal. The Bias to be is a fundamental necessity that self organisation / consciousness forms around. It creates a self that is biased to be, hence self organisation can occur. It could not occur around an indifference to be / a non self.The selfish gene creates consciousness. A non selfish gene would be a P.zombie gene, so indifferent or not selfish, so not conscious or alive.

So DNA is biased to be, whether self determined, or externally determined. Hence emotional-information is fundamental. It is the fundamental necessity for consciousness and life. Unemotional information would not cause self organization as there would be no self to organize around. Emotional information causes a central bias that is the self, and this is what self organization / consciousness forms around and preserves.

Of course, my postulates challenge your self organization, and visa versa. This is why I am not hopeful of a resolution any time soon. :rage:

1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system. — Pop

Postulate one contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and lets not forget these postulates are mathematically based. This is why I try not to stray too far from personal experience - the further from this the murkier the waters become.

It’s worth exploring Kant’s aesthetics to recognize how this develops from the pleasure of engagement to a non-conceptual, disinterested delight, allowing ‘free play’ between our faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. — Possibility

What Kant is describing is an experience. But in his time he dose not have the conceptual framework with which to understand it. He lacks the P.zombie argument principally, so he strays into impossible assertions which simply don't make sense.

Consciousness can be divided into information integration, and then experience, and then affect.
The experience, I postulate, is resolved to an emotion, which is a feeling, which resolves to a point on the PPS. This creates Affect. I think, you, Kant and Barrett see the experience component as the subconscious, and so you make mistakes. It is possible to some extent to suspend thought, and feel the qualia of an experience, but to then suggest imagination, understanding , and judgement can come into play is a contradiction, as then intellect comes into play and that effects the feeling being felt. I can see a beautiful women and enjoy seeing her beauty non judgmentally, but then I learn something about her that I don't like, and so her beauty in my eyes is diminished.

It is possible to reach a state of consciousness in meditation that is ineffable. It is a state where the intellectual consciousness is turned off, so nothing can be said about this state. It is not something many can do reliably, but many will experience such moments in meditation, and still others can use such mind control in everyday life. Kant is referring to this ability without quite grasping it. Having knowledge of this ability shines a alight on experience, in my opinion.

I can not think of a solution. But I am hopeful.

Is consciousness the key? It certainly seems to be at the forefront when we consider philosophy. But a lot of cognitive research seems to support the ancient notion that we are actually ruled by our emotions. So maybe emotions are the key. Meanwhile, perhaps we can take as a temporary purpose that we not destroy ourselves or our earth. — flaco

Consciousness is the central problem. It forms around and preserves the self. It is a process of self organisation. It is worth noting what the self is: the physical self operates through a belief system that exists in and evolves in a collective consciousness or culture. So what the self is, is to some extent drawn from the information surrounding the self. So self interest is not necessarily in conflict with the interest of one's family or community, or perhaps the world. Having said this, it is still centrally self interested, as it could not form around a central self disinterest. This would be a P.zombie, and they could indeed make dispassionate and rational choices as they are indifferent as to how the choices effect them, however in the process they forfeit consciousness and life, but a consciousness is never indifferent. Every instance of consciousness is an experience, and, as you say, ruled by emotion, which is either painful or pleasurable or something in between. Thus affected, it makes self interested choices, and Mary's article is a prime example.

I cannot see a solution within the materialistic paradigm either, as any solution requires messing with consciousness itself, which apparently dose not exist. It requires a paradigm shift to idealism, and then there may be more options.

Well that opens a whole can-o-worms. For those of us who view humans as devices to propagate genes, our purpose is to propagate genes. Can we transcend that particular purpose? Can we come up with a new purpose "in a non self interested way" until we understand how our brain, conscious and emotional, is processing information about our world? — flaco

I agree with how you explain humanity, but there must be a way. Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization so it seems it will at some point transcend this impasse. Can you think of a solution?

But further, and this should bother anyone here who has read even a modicum of ethics, even if our behaviour is best explained by genetic imperatives, the question remains open: Ought we do as our genes say? — Banno

That is a good point, and I would add, given our genetic code, is it possible to even answer this question in a non self interested way?

DNA is not alive. It is a molecular structure, organised in such a way that the potential of the information it contains renders a living system. Its informational structure has a qualitative aspect that manifests only in relation to another DNA structure, under certain conditions within a system that will supply the required resources. — Possibility

DNA is not only alive, it is immortal. Life is its vehicle. It is living information, and ultimately, if information is fundamental, this is what life is - living information. You cant say DNA is not alive! It exists in every one of your 10 trillion odd cells.

1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

So which postulate do we accept? Because one contradicts the other! If a system is finite, how can you always obtain new information?

It’s worth exploring Kant’s aesthetics to recognise how this develops from the pleasure of engagement to a non-conceptual, disinterested delight, allowing ‘free play’ between our faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. — Possibility

This statement dose not disagree with my view entirely. Kant is experiencing qualia, whilst suspending intellectual content. Of course, it is doubtful such a situation can exist, and it makes no sense to say that in such a setting you can have understanding or judgement, as those would be intellectual content. This gets back to why you cannot describe red with reason alone, it is something that can only be experienced, and is a slightly different experience for everybody regardless of how you might describe it.

In the OP you're speaking about intellect, not consciousness. This is a very common approach in the West but it gets us nowhere. It is this sort of thinking that reduces consciousness to information processing, which is the claim that all the mystics of all time were deluded and fraudulent. Well, maybe, but it's a massive speculative leap that seems entirely ad hoc. . . — FrancisRay

In the OP I describe an instance of consciousness where information is integrated with emotion. This being the state that creates an experience, which we take to be reality. The information is processed by the intellect / extracellular consciousness, but the emotion belongs to the whole system, hence when information and emotion is unified the whole system agrees. But you would really have to read the whole theory.

As a monistic idealist, information is the fundamental stuff, but I do sympathize with a lot of yogic logic, although I keep my rationale and language firmly embedded in logic and a materialistic language and style.

:up:

Once you are good at this and see the distinction clearly, you can start to inform one from the other and develop a more subtle understanding of yourself, the world and your place in it. — Punshhh

:up: we should discus this sometime.

To learn the truth. — FrancisRay

But what if the truth is not to your liking, what then?

Nothing exists that is biased to NOT be. Everything expresses a bias simply by existing, which is contingent upon a binary relation to non-existence. The essential element for any kind of organising is relation - without it, there is no qualitative information, no structure - this argument applies to all existence. — Possibility

DNA is alive however, Is it indifferent or is it biased?

If it is biased then you have to admit emotions are fundamental and essential.

A ‘bias to be’ could be observed in a living organism as consolidation (living by maintenance) OR as relation (living by adaptability) - but it’s really BOTH. — Possibility

Yes it is both. A bias to be is what the self organization revolves aground, and how this self organization expresses itself is endlessly variable and open ended - quite possibly infinite :starstruck: - If we apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, there is always information outside the system that things within the system rely on for their explanation. So this suggests infinite consciousness growth.

Regarding your broader argument that "Nothing exists that is biased to NOT be". I would agree with this, my theory is panpsychist and it relies on not just information to be fundamental, but emotional -information. As previously explained indifferent or reasonable information would not form a universe, so it would not become a process of self organization, and neither would its component parts. You Barrett and myself agree that emotional - information exists, not purely objective information, and we arrive at this through different paradigms and different reasoning, so this is important. That everything that exists is biased to be so is profound as it affirms emotional-information. But I would speculate further in this direction, and a little off topic, in regard to where great insights and ideas come from. Minds like Einstein and others say they come from a love of the subject, but what is love? - some emotion that arises due to the pleasure of engagement with somebody or something. It gives rise to extraordinary energy and engagement, and extraordinary things happen. :smile: How this phenomenon relates to emotional-information is worthy of a theory in itself.

Apparently I don’t. Are you saying that protein synthesis and immune response are examples of self-organisation at an intracellular level - with no connection to the [extracellular ]system structures except through pain-pleasure? — Possibility

Yes, that is how it seems. The PPS is an emotional gradient that they both agree on.

There - did you just experience red in the shape of your name? That probabilistic experience is quantified and constructed by the website’s code. It’s just a hashtag and six number/letter combination. — Possibility

That is cheating and you know it. :smile:

Again with the logic. Bias at the level of consciousness is a complex, five-dimensional algorithm within a six-dimensional structure of relation. This is the ‘logic’ of it. — Possibility

I love your dimensionality, I think it is really clever. I also agree on your vertical explanation of the complexity of life. What I would add is that the macro organism requires emotion to be conscious and alive, and hence all of its component parts also are experiencing emotion, and all of its component parts all the way down are thus capable of experiencing emotion, hence this must be the case, even when they are not part of the whole organism. So emotion is essential. It may be the singular concept that all the component parts can agree on.

But I think a six-dimensional structure of information, with qualitative-quantitative duality, accounts for both in a surprisingly elegant way. — Possibility

It is a very elegant conception, but I believe it would be even better if you integrated it with my conception. :cool: - not that I'm biased or anything.

The way I see it: Barrett's conception ( highly simplified ) is that information is integrated and thus emotion is created that affects a person. I would say how about accounting for experience. Barrett would say that is part of the subconscious. I would say hay - not any more: experience is an emotion, that is a feeling, that is either painful or pleasurable, that is something both consciousnesses agree on, that is something understood all the way down, that is something that unifies and animates the entire system.

I don't know that sentient is the right word. I would say that DNA is information that cellular consciousness / epigenetics / RNA can read. Human DNA information is 875 mb of data, or the equivalent of 100 encyclopedia volumes. Cellular consciousness is able to select from this data, transcribe it and then discern the transcription, snip of the unwanted data, and create a protein. It is estimated that the human body contains between 80,000 and 400,000 proteins. So this is a very sophisticated system of self organization.

My definition of consciousness is an evolving process of self organisation, where intracellular consciousness and extracellular consciousness agree on an emotional gradient, that we experience as a pain pleasure spectrum. If you wish to read more you can do so here.

That cellular consciousness is sentient though is going too far, in my opinion. It is entirely focused on cellular self organization and can not have thoughts like brain centric extracellular consciousness. The information it integrates is vastly different to the information that we integrate, so it is a vastly different ball game, as I see it.

The common thread is that both systems integrate information, as dose the biosphere.

There is no such thing as a selfish gene.
— creativesoul

That is correct.
— Kenosha Kid — creativesoul

Are you saying that DNA is indifferent?

Or is DNA on a mission, and is it entirely committed to that mission? If so then DNA is biased.

A bias is emotional information - an aversion to something, and an attraction to its opposite.

Is Mary Midgely's article indifferent, or is it also on a mission, like DNA?

I don't think anybody can seriously dispute the selfish gene idea. I think, what Mary was really objecting to, was the inference that if the gene is selfish then this justifies selfish behavior, hence the extremely biased and emotional opinion piece - she was saving the world from the villain Dawkins. Her heart is in the right place, but I think it would have been better to engage with the idea and explain how it manifests itself in everyday life.

In the process of self organization we have to make decisions, and ultimately the decisions we make have either painful or pleasurable consequences, and wherever possible we tend to choose the decisions that have pleasurable consequences rather then the most responsible / altruistic ones.

I am not a great fan of Dawkins either, however:
DNA is information. It is not information that we can read, although we are making some strides along that path, it is information that our cellular consciousness can read. Epigenetics reads this information to construct a person. The information in these genes creates the person, and so the person is an expression of the information that created them.

A person is always in a process of self organization. To self organize you need to consider the self in relation to all other factors surrounding you. This way self interest is present in all instances of consciousness. It is not a moral consideration, but one of pure logic, that Mary seems to miss.

From Wikipedia:

Midgley–Dawkins debate
In volume 53 (1978) of Philosophy, the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, J. L. Mackie published an article entitled The Law of the Jungle: Moral Alternatives and Principles of Evolution, praising Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, and discussing how its ideas might be applied to moral philosophy.[34] Midgley responded in volume 54 (1979) with "Gene-Juggling," arguing that The Selfish Gene was about psychological egoism, rather than evolution.[35] The paper criticised Dawkins' concepts, but was judged by its targets to be intemperate and personal in tone, and as having misunderstood Dawkins' ideas.

I do it by constructing a logic around consciousness, and testing the logic through introspection. Although I also have a lot of contact with animals - mostly wild animals. And I have a lot of respect for eastern philosophy, although not in its entirety - I pick and choose the bits I agree with.

Yes easily. It was originally called junk, but we really don't yet know what it is.

Yes, this is how I also understand it, and there is nothing mystical about my thinking. DNA information is the only constant - the body and intellectual mind are constantly changing and evolving, and we are generally blind to this. That DNA is information, but not information for the intellectual mind is a challenge for western thought.

So how do you get in touch with this innate knowledge? I have postulated emotions bridge these two minds.