So, is that to say, that you consider the challenge made by Constance to be irrelevant to your enterprise? — Valentinus

Can you point me to the challenge please?

Does that conclusion amount to a rejection of a claim that something else can be recognized outside of the stories we make to explain things? — Valentinus

Yes, nothing can exist outside of the interaction of ideas, but the interaction of ideas has a physical basis in neurobiology, and given a systems understanding, a similar such situation must have evolved outside of mind initially. So the evolution of informational structure in mind is equal to the evolution of informational structure outside of mind. So there is only one way for informational structure to evolve, and everything that evolves is informational structure. So panpsychism is the obvious conclusion.

It will take a while for this to get over the line, :lol: and I think the showdown will be in cellular biology, where greater resolution of what is going on due to technology, is pushing opinion towards a recognition that what we are seeing is mind like. As suggested in the paper cited earlier. It concludes with the comment : "The concept of a gene, beyond a means of specifying the amino acid sequences of the peptides from which the proteins are formed, is both mostly unnecessary and possibly misleading."

I think this is as much as any academic who values his tenure can say at the present moment, but more and more are starting to say it, it seems.

You had better tell that to the professor...
— Pop

They are doing science; you are not. — Banno

Where have I stated that I am doing science? I do theory.

That everything is information is already implied in Systems Theory and Enactivism, but I hone in on it in ways that they haven't. Specifically I define it, and through this definition have found that nothing can exist outside of information - outside of the interaction of two or more forms.

Normally we would say we can write data to a hard drive, and move the hard drive form one room to another, and hence we think we have moved information. This is not true. This is the same problem as Schrodinger's cat. No matter how certain we are about what's in the box, we can not know for sure until we open it. The same is true for the hard drive, we can not know if there is any data on it until we read it. This, and many other similar illustrations validate my definition, such that it is predictive and can be used scientifically to probe situations logically - situations that we cannot directly observe. Of course I state this as a belief.

You had better tell that to the professor who wrote the evolutionary origin of form and function above, and those other ones at MIT in the video.

By the way, did you manage to find something that isn't information?

You are a case. :roll: One guys opinion from 1958 against contemporary science. Go Banno.

Mind AssociationConfirmable and Influential MetaphysicsAuthor(s): J. W. N. WatkinsSource:Mind, New Series, Vol. 67, No. 267 (Jul., 1958)

Can you answer this question? It is a notch deeper than the word game:

What comes first, reality, or the thought that creates it?

As I mentioned before, it has an almost religious fervour. Sure, it explains lots. That's not the same as explaining everything. That's the overreach. — Banno

Systems theory enables a view of the universe as an evolving articulation of systems. Where everything is informationally created bottom up and articulated laterally also. It literally is an explanation of everything, except the quantum foam. The foam has to move to form, and thereafter everything is an evolution of form - quite literally. Energy particles > elementary particles > atoms > molecules > cellular proteins > cells, organs, Bodies, families, communities, countries, humanity, the biosphere, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are all interrelated and interacting systems, evolving together. What they have in common is physical form. This physical form is endlessly variable and open ended, but it is what enables them to interact and evolve. What is interacting is the unique qualities of one system with that of another system. This interaction is information, imo. Information between us serves the same purpose - it allows us to interact and evolve. So, information is the evolutionary interaction of form. Form in this case is the form of one understanding interacting with the form of another understanding. Make sense?

Seems to me you are just offering yet another game. — Banno

I'm trying to provide you with an overview of how the game works, but yes, this also necessarily becomes another game. Another form of the game.

If you ground your understanding in a science like systems theory, you too will be able to talk about everything. And the idea that everything is information will make sense to you. It is not very difficult to understand in principle.

I'll admit not seeing much in it at all. Saying "forms can be anything physical" doesn't ring with Wittgenstein's analysis. Saying that it's all interactions of forms doesn't clarify anything. Proscribing a definition of information as "the evolutionary interaction of form" simply looks confused. — Banno

Wit did not have the benefit of any of the theories that I mention. So he could not go deeper than word games.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno

In other words, how you conceive the beginning is the start of your informational structure. You build onto that. If you start with god, then you build on that. If you start with energy, then you build on that.
Regardless of how you start and what you build it will exist in some form. This is what we see across cultures, and through the ages - different forms of understanding.

The universe has to exist in some form, and as a consequence, so do all of it's components. We exist in different forms, as does our understanding. These forms are the things that interact in systems theory, and in this process we are enacted into the world in Enactivism.

This is a paper demonstrating contemporary understanding:
The evolutionary origin of form and function - 2014

Abstract: "The evolution of multicellular organisms with complex forms and functional abilities can be accounted for based on a fundamental tenet underpinned by the second law of thermodynamics, with natural selection acting on the ability of the organism to transduct energy (nutrient) most efficiently from its ecosystem by deploying that form and those functions. The information that gives rise to form and function is dispersed throughout the organism in the constituent cellular phenotypes and derives mainly from the interactions between information bearing proteins. The concept of a gene, beyond a means of specifying the amino acid sequences of the peptides from which the proteins are formed, is both mostly unnecessary and possibly misleading."

Note how they are using information.

There is a way to understand the game that Wit refers to. It is a game of the interaction of forms. The forms can be anything physical. It is not so important what form they take, but it is important that they take form. In the interaction of form, everything evolves.

Information is: the evolutionary interaction of form. This is the game as I see it.

To understand the game you need to understand the principles of constructivism, systems theory, enactivism, and information, in the sense I have defined it. The definition of information thread was supposed to enable an understanding of the game, but nobody is interested. Oh well. :smile:

** It is a bit much to unload here. Banno mentioned me and used Wit's quote, so I couldn't resist. Didnt mean to derail the thread.

And he had much to say about the identification of simples. What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic (@Pop); but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno

Very impressive Banno. Here begins the world of informational structure. What came first - the thought or the physical structure that enabled it? How are these different? Can one exist without the other?

I skimmed. The metaphysical basis of logic, as you say, and Wittgenstein: you know such an idea is an oxymoron in his thinking? — Constance

I'm not much interested in his thinking, I was referring to the quote you posted.

As to the tutorial, I found it a bit elementary. Not wrong, but a bit off the mark. Such discussion of perceptual knowledge relationships begs the question, what is knowledge? — Constance

The relationship of one part to another, is where logical structure begins. This is the beginning of knowledge. Knowledge is related and integrated, and is progressively built upon, such that any subsequent structure ( added understanding ) has to fit existing logical structure, as per constructivism. So, things understood tomorrow have to be understood in terms of today's understanding. So, it is a building onto current understanding.

You might be interested in this.
It suggests a way of understanding time.

The appearance to us of the external (to our bodies) world is a collaborative enactment between our bodies and the external world in which they are embedded, and latter provides the medium within which our enactments can occur. — Janus

Yes, I'm glad you understand how we are enmeshed into the whole biosphere evolving, otherwise enactivism might lead you to some sort of solipsistic ideation, which is total BS nonsense once you have a systems understanding. :up:

Sounds like you're close to something, but then ...information?? Counterpart in the real world? At any rate, the construction of relation as constituting meaning is close to a good point, I think. The distinction: can you elaborate? say more about this "counterpart" if you would. — Constance

You touched upon it with your quote from Wit. Dig a little deeper and you find that the relationship of two things, is the metaphysical base of logic. It turns out that this relation, or interaction is information. A bit much to unload here, but If you skim this short thread, you'll get the idea. :smile:

Well, something changes doesn't it, such that if we were to be there after it had happened, we would see the tree fallen? — Janus

Yes, but it's about a way of seeing things. Whether certain paradigms are consistent with reality, or not. Obviously much must happen outside of our awareness, but it is only the things within our awareness that can create our reality, no?

We can take this deeper, if information is an evolutionary interaction of form, then information causes a physical change to our neural patterning, thus physically informing us of externalities. And we thus interact with that physical informing, rather than an external world. What we are, what it is, is a consequence of that physical neural informing. This way of understanding takes into account such things as colour, sound, smell, taste - things that science tells us do not exist in the external world. In the external world there are frequencies of light, vibrations, discreet particles, etc.

What I am describing is the Enactivist paradigm, which I believe is the best conception of reality I have come across, slightly better than idealism.

In the beginning there was the word? — Constance

In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god. This is very much the same as all beginnings, in the sense that they are a relation of one thing to another. We see this at the base of all theories: energy and it's information ( frequency and amplitude ) create a wavicle, a field and its excitation, a string and it's vibration, order and entropy, 1+1. These are the limits of logic / metaphysics.

To construct anything one has to begin by relating one thing to another. Here begins our relational understanding. The construction of a relation is necessary to create a distinction, such that in relation to each other two things become distinct. The distinction is information. This is the beginning of consciousness "as we know it". Of course, assuming a systems understanding, this relational beginning would have it's counterpart in the real world. So the "real" world starts in exactly the same way. :smile:

But the world is brimful with relations that don't require us to be noticing them, or even involve us at all, in order to exist. — Janus

This would be the tree in the forest problem? If nobody sees it, does it fall? :smile:

It may turn out to be the case that relational pattern , rather than intrinsic content , IS the basis of objective reality. — Joshs

:up: Hence everything is information!

Wheeler's it from bit concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. ... As Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, said:"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature ......

Phi is the proposed measure of integrated information in any object - still a little controversial.

Can you measure a pattern? Say a square or a circle? What are the bits of a circle? — Prishon

I can not. :sad: But emergent disciplines such as mathematical biology, and mathematical ecology attempt to.

Mathematical and theoretical biology or, biomathematics, is a branch of biology which employs theoretical analysis, mathematical models and abstractions of the living organisms to investigate the principles that govern the structure, development and behavior of the systems, as opposed to experimental biology which ...

Mathematical ecology is an area of applied mathematics concerned with applications of mathematical concepts, tools and techniques, usually in the form of mathematical models, to problems arising in population dynamics, ecology and evolution.

It may not be immediately obvious, but if this is a "valid and irreducible" definition of information, and if everything is information, then logically, this is also a definition of everything! :smile:

Wheeler's idea of information differs from Tononi's. — Manuel

They both believe information is fundamental. This takes some appreciation!

Wheeler said "it from bit", whilst Tononi sees everything as "integrated information", and tries to measure it with phi.

The problem with this is that it may run the risk of being dismissed by physicists who don’t see it as either empirically valid or philosophically coherent.
They may be wrong , but I think what you’re aiming for will be much between comprehended by others of you put more emphasis on the human behavioral implications of your theory ( emotion, intersubjective relations , cognition and perception , psychopathology, language , ethics). — Joshs

:up: Yes I agree. Most of the time I am just trying to keep my theory afloat by elucidating it with simple unassailable concepts. It is a work in progress. Thanks for you reply. :smile:

Energy and it's information creates a wavicle. Two wavicles integrating. A field and its excitation. A blank sheet of paper and its scribble, 1+1. These are logical / metaphysical limits, that would have their counterparts in the physical world, assuming a systems understanding. Distinction requires two representations.

Two wavicles integrate their information ( frequency and amplitude ) to a resultant wavicle. That is all that ever happens really. The resultant wavicle is integrated information, disturbed by the next wavicle integrated. It starts there and evolves to elementary particles, atoms, molecules, etc. It is an evolution of form - the perturbations of a substance being form, being the property that enables interaction. A system is a something that exhibits such form, and changes in the process of interaction, all the while integrating the interactions.

Everything can be represented by a wavefunction, as it integrates more information, it simply changes form. :smile:

A system can be represented by a wavefunction, as it interacts, the form of the wavefunction will change.

"Information is an interaction of form". This is what occurs as you read this - the form of this sentence disturbs your neural state and is distinct against your understanding, which is a form of integrated information .

“Why are processes so hard to classify? In earlier times, we could usually judge machines and processes by how they transformed raw materials into finished products. But it makes no sense to speak of brains as though they manufacture thoughts the way factories make cars. The difference is that brains use processes that change themselves-and this means we cannot separate such
processes from the products they produce. In particular, brains make memories, which change the ways we'll subsequently think. The principal activities of brains are making changes in themselves. Because the whole idea of self-modifying processes is new to our experience, we
cannot yet trust our commonsense judgement about such matters.”

What is remarkable about this passage is the absence of any notion of representation. Minsky does not say
that the principal activity of brains is to represent the external world; he says that it is to make continuous
self-modifications. What has happened to the notion of representation?

In fact, an important and pervasive shift is beginning to take place in cognitive science under the very influence of its own research. This shift requires that we move away from the idea of the world as independent and extrinsic to the idea of a world as inseparable from the structure of these processes of self-modification. This change in stance does not express a mere philosophical preference; it reflects the necessity of understanding cognitive systems not on the basis of their input and output relationships but by their operational closure. A system that has operational closure is one in which the results of its processes are those processes themselves. The notion of operational closure is thus a way of specifying classes of processes that, in their very operation, turn back upon themselves to form autonomous networks. Such networks do not fall into the class of systems defined by external mechanisms of control (heteronomy) but rather into the class of systems defined by internal mechanisms of self-organization (autonomy). The key point is that such systems do not operate by representation. Instead of representing an independent world, they enact a world as a domain of distinctions that is inseparable from the structure embodied by the cognitive system.

We wish to evoke the point that when we begin to take such a conception of mind seriously, we must call into question the idea that the world is pregiven and that cognition is representation. In cognitive science, this means that we must call into question the idea that information exists ready-made in the world and that it is extracted by a cognitive system, as the cognitivist notion of an informavore vividly implies.”

- @Joshs


Information is not the stored data but the interaction of that data with other data. Information is not representation but the interaction of one representation with that of another representation. This creates the distinction in terms of an established neural patterning, and overlapping patterns, in a continuous process. The established patterning at any particular time can be thought of as a state of integrated information, overlayed by new patterns, thus the new patterns are distinct in relation to the old patterns. This is consistent with constructivism, IIT, and, I believe, Enactivism. It is just not possible to understand, given the vague and inappropriate definitions of information that we have. All definitions of information focus on the data, the quantity of data, or the representations of data - whereas, in fact information only exists in the interaction of data. This is missed because we do not see ourselves in the equation. We do not notice how information changes us. We imagine ourselves as passive observers of and manipulators of information, whereas in fact we are the ones being changed– due to our neural patterning incurring an involuntary physical change. Thus enacting us. This is why we see an evolving neuroplasticity, because the patterning has to interact, and evolve, as a product of thinking, in a continuous process, but to arrive at some form of integrity, such as to create a moment of clarity – only to be disturbed by further information. I am not saying that clarity is equal to the external world. Idealism has long ago established that.

What do you think?

The way I understand it, five-dimensional conceptual structure isn’t organised according to time — Possibility

I wish you would do a thread on dimensionality so that slow pokes like myself could understand it?

Given that the processes behind thought do not appear to be consciously accessible, what does it mean to attribute the source of thinking to consciousness? — InPitzotl

I have outlined the processes leading to thought, but it's source is elusive. When we give this source some definition, it does not change the source, but it changes how we relate to it. So we change ourselves if we say it is god, and then we change to something different If we say it is bosonic forces.

If we say the source is a physical force, then it creates a material reality such as we are used to. But when we say the source is consciousness, the possibilities of our reality are hugely expanded - expanded far beyond anything I can conceive! :smile:

If you are interested in my view, you are welcome to read my posts. — Banno

Yes, I'm familiar with your posts. You subscribe to the prevailing popular dogma, where most people gather and concur. It is not a bad strategy. Good luck with it, but it seems to me an odd place for a philosopher and enquiring mind.

Are they compulsory now? — Banno

We all posses a theory of everything. Everybody takes an epistemic stance. It is just that for some people that stance is that there can be no understanding. Their understanding is that there can be no understanding, so when they come across an understanding, the immediate response is to dismiss it based on an assumption of no understanding.

You have a theory of everything - nobody gets to sit this one out. You understand yourself within your theory of everything. What is its form?

So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain.

And my three part question is "Who is thinking, how thought is created and where does it take place?/b]. — Alkis Piskas

Nice intro and good question. :up:

That a brain and senses are a crucial element of this is without question, but they are not the source of "thinking". The source of "thinking" is consciousness, but what is that?

In evolutionary psychology, it is thought that language developed before self awareness and a symbolic self concept. So, a self concept developed in a collective of minds - as you would expect given the need for cohesion in early hunter gatherer groups. So, thinking, "as we know it", from the very beginning, is not even located in a body, let alone a brain, but in a collective consciousness!

Of course, this is not it's source. to trace it's source requires an understanding of systems theory, and particularly the concept of self organization. In systems theory everything is a self organizing system, enmeshed with all the other self organizing systems around it. The whole enmeshment is articulated and driven by information. Information in this instance = the evolutionary interaction of form, as explained by this hugely popular thread.

In this view, everything is an evolving body of information, in the particular, and in the collective. Such that a cell in the body is one self organizing system, forming a larger self organizing system of organs, forming a larger self organizing system of body, forming a larger self organizing system of families, communities , countries, and finally a collective humanity, enmeshed within a likewise formed and interrelated biosphere.

Self organization is the source of life and thus thinking, but what is the essence or the source of self organization? In yogic logic, consciousness is the source of self organization. So, in yogic logic all that exists is consciousness and information, where information is the evolutionary interaction / interrelation of form. But again, what is this consciousness? In the range of answers, we get back to: God, convergent forces, emotions, a phase state of order, anthropic principle, etc. :smile: Your guess is as good as mine, but regardless of how we relate to the source, and that is what we do when we define it, it doesn't change it, it only changes us! And I think this is an amusing fact. :lol: It seems to me we should just lump all these different conceptions into the one conception, and call it something like the Source, and be done with all this bickering, imo.

**The source does the thinking and will continue to do so regardless of what we think! :lol:

The entropy of you and me is about the same — Prishon

Nevertheless, we are completely different forms. — Prishon

:up: Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about . 1 percent. This means that about one base pair out of every 1,000 will be different between any two individuals. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/

Not much difference genetically, but experience then plays its part in furthering the divide due to the information we encounter ( information changes us in the act of experiencing ). Still not much difference, but enough to heat up discussion in a philosophy forum, and, of course, the wider world. :lol:

** In terms of being a self organizing system, shaped by information, there is no difference between us, and all other systems.

I see determinism as the momentum of informational structure, at all scales - but there is a slight element of randomness at the intersection of every transaction, such that it makes it a determinism with a slight element of randomness. This would seem to be the case in the natural world. This would seem to be entropy playing its part - the domino must fall, but can fall with a slight twist to the left or right thus changing its path slightly in the process, such that you ultimately can only probabilistically predict it's final location. This creates emergent novel form. Would you agree?

I’m saying that a vague, qualitative difference of potentiality/significance/value arises from the most fundamental level of reality, and that mind or thought isn’t even in the picture yet. — Possibility

Did you observe this, or was it something you thought up? :smile:

What I meant is that fundamental reality is a conception. It used to be that God made fundamental reality in seven days, and this has had many different permutations since. I am pointing out that we need to conceive fundamental reality, and perhaps we still have a way to go in this regard?

Ask a fundamentalist, from any religion, what fundamental reality is, and feast on the variety of fundamental reality.

It would be great to explore how information creates fundamental reality in the definition of information thread? How information changes us?? This thread is getting too long. :sad:
Surely you have some objection to what I wrote, or you have some observations to add?

But that science won't thank you for spreading information woo, based on confusions about physics. — bongo fury

I don't understand what you mean by woo? Whatever I have stated, I have backed up with references, and argument. You are free to make a counter argument with counter references.

I am referencing science, but I don't see that you are referencing anything.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.2515.pdf

Not at all. Possibly it argues why physics is not enough, and we need a science of complex systems. Fine. — bongo fury

This is what I meant. Not that systems theory replaces entropy and physics, but that it compliments it.

As well as being a term that strictly speaking says all sorts of interesting things that can and should be stated perfectly well in terms of entropy — bongo fury

This short 10min video is a great primer in systems thinking, and it answers why entropy is not enough.

I think. It was a feeling that she was showing her love. Waiting for us and her to be one befors leaving to who knows where. It was a kind of religious experience. Only god knows the true Nature or something like that. :cry: — Prishon

I'm sorry to hear that. Pets are family in our house. They are as entitled as any member, so I can relate to your loss. That our feelings are related to bosonic forces does not diminish their significance, but amplifies them and unifies us to the larger picture evolving, imo. In my view, we can never loose touch with those feelings in this universe, no matter our form. :halo: Yogic logic suggests a similar story, and ultimately my philosophy is one of universal togetherness. Please don't puke when reading this. :smile:

I just realized. Maybe the force is the feeling! In physics gauge fields ( taking care of interactions) are strange fields. So maybe you're right! :up: — Prishon

I'm not familiar with gauge fields, so will look in to it. Thanks

One already suffices. :wink: — Prishon

Its great to find another that understands :up:

after I mentioned somewhat similar to this on philosophy stack exchange my answer was deleted and downvoted a number of times... — Prishon

One of the things I like about the format here is that popular opinion has to engage with you before it can knock you down. But sadly not many people do engage with me. So I imagine popular opinion would not think much of my thinking also.

However complicated the inner and outer Forms are (with the bodily mixed Form in between), it cant account for actually FEELING stuff. — Prishon

These forms are forming for some reason. Forces acting on them? Surely they would feel forces acting on them?

Maybe it's a logic problem. Fundamental thought is the only tool we have to explore fundamental reality. But the tool itself seems to emerge from fundamental reality. — Mark Nyquist

Yeah. Fundamental reality, is something we have to conceive, given we have no access to it's cornerstone. I would agree with you that informational structure would take the same fundamental form wherever it occurs, so it seems a reliable thing to say that fundamental thought is equal to fundamental reality, at least the structured elements of that reality. Outside of the structure, would be chaos, and according to the definition form cannot interact with something that is formless.

I cannot believe there is not one comment in the definition thread. :sad:

I don't think so. There is no fundamental thought That assumption assumes the existence of a fundamental. What is considered as derived from the fundamental in this view can in fact be equal to all forms. It could be that there is no hierachy. With fundamental slaveforms at the bottom and and a tirant form at the top. — Prishon

I agree with what you mean. It is something that must arise in tiny increments. But how we conceive it is limited to the relation of one thing to another. So how I imagine the situation you are referring to evolves, is as a state of consciousness existing in a form, being disturbed by information changing its state, in an ongoing process, at all levels of an evolving system. See my reply to Frank. Consciousness in this case is a state of integrated information. This is the primary form that is evolving, in parts, and as a whole, in a sequence of one card being laid upon the integrated form of the preceding others imo.

I don't think this is in keeping with neuroscience, is it? — frank

I think it is. I think neuroscience would say without the physical neural change, no externalities could register. But what I was referring to, in that particular statement is something entirely conceptual.
Logically there is a minimum requirement to register a distinction, which is the relation of one thing to another. And at the same time we see fundamental theory must start with: a nothingness and a big bang, order and entropy, a wave and its frequency, a field and its excitation, a string and it's vibration, a blank sheet of paper and it's scribble, 1+1. So it makes me wonder?

I would think our evolution as an informational body, would be equal to what happens to all informational bodies in the universe, including the ordered universe itself. So the limits of logic would have their parallels in the universe, as it relates to structured bodies. So the limits of thought would be equal to the limits of structure in the universe. Hence a fundamental thought is a mirror image of fundamental reality.

I wish somebody would comment in the definition of information thread so this story can continue?