what is the source of the order we see in living organisms? — Wayfarer

More then that - What is the source of order in the universe? That which integrates the Universe integrates us!

I value Apo's input, and hope to continue the enquiry with him.

I know what you mean it is a problem everybody experiences, because we tend to think of information only as something we receive. Which is true, BUT, What occurs is that there is a third person point of view, which subsumes to a first person point of view.

In the third person we don't receive the information, in theory, in paradigm. We conceive our self as a passive onlooker watching information link others. Of course, whilst this is conceptually invaluable, in reality it is not the case, we are also informationally linked.

It is to do with the notion of a mind independent reality which some people believe is the case.

Information is a fundamental quantity. It is present in everything.

I gave you the obvious criticisms of ITT that were made even when Tononi first started going down that route. I remember the rubbishing and even some laughter during the coffee breaks at neuroscience conferences in the mid-1990s. — apokrisis

I can relate to what you are saying in some respects. I also have my quibbles about IIT. But I find Integrated information ( a concept preceding IIT ) to be the best possible definition of consciousness. My interest is consciousness, I don't stray vey far into other topics, so I have a pretty good fix on it. I'm surprised how poorly understood the concept of integrated information is, given some of the queries, perhaps this needs a thread on it's own?

The reason information theory is useful to humans is that it allows us to atomise the notion of form just as classical mechanics allowed us to atomise the notion of masses and forces - or material and efficient causes — apokrisis

Yes precisely, Information needs to be broken down to into small chunks, its finest grains, to be understood, as everything is information. I have an intuitive affinity to an informational understanding of systems, that just doesn't occur with thermodynamics ( for me ). I am not interested in the intricate details, so much as a broad philosophical understanding, such that a singular concept can narrate the big picture in simply understandable and human scale terms. Information is excellent for this, but I don't yet fully understand it. There is a lot to understand. I feel there is quite a lot of "new" philosophical meat on offer, but perhaps this is just new to me.

The entire biomass of the planet occurs due to copying - so it is necessarily information processing. And because all systems evolve, they have to evolve by integrating the disintegrative information effecting them - such as we see in global warming.

@Wayfarer put me on to some excellent stuff from the Royal Society, which even I found surprising:

"We conclude that organic information does not have the status of a derived physical quantity because it cannot be expressed by anything simpler than itself. This means that organic information has the same scientific status as the fundamental quantities of physics."

This conclusion aligns with the Zeilinger paper posted earlier. And I think this is the broad direction understanding is headed towards.

As you say "information theory works really well as a way for us humans to model our physical reality."

Thanks for the excellent summary. It seems a little like Neural networks, with the Markov chain, just much more complicated. Brains are obviously central to Human consciousness, but as a monist I am much more interested in the source of consciousness, which I take to be the "thing" that causes the information to integrate. I assume there is a singular source that integrates all information, and if you have followed the thread, I am in hot water for stating that everything is information. :lol: I will need to rationalize that at some stage.

What do you think causes the information to integrate. You have described a process that might recognize a pattern and shunt it to an area that might symbolize it. But what do you think causes this to occur? What I'm wondering is if a pattern needs to be shunted to a particular area of the brain, it would seem to suggest it is recognized early in the process, and so escorted to where it should go, but is not actually cognized until the end of the process. - Just a query, any thoughts would be appreciated.

FYI - Neuroplasticity in action:

the least useful consisting of a paradoxical ‘relation’ of six-dimensional ‘meaningfulness’, and the most dynamic - and potentially confusing - a combination of ‘object’, ‘event’ and ‘potential’ (a differentiated triadic structure of 3-4-5). — Possibility

:grimace: I don't understand this.

IIT is an interesting theoretical approach, but is firmly grounded in Cartesian dualism, and based on an assumption that it’s even possible to qualify consciousness as a consolidated event and then isolate it as a stable evaluation applicable to any interaction. — Possibility

"our model challenges prominent theories on philosophy of mind, which assume that consciousness is a continuous stream." - Time Slices: What Is the Duration of a Percept?

Straw man followed by plain silliness. Yet you seem to want to be taken seriously. — apokrisis

You provide me with expressions of your consciousness, that contain integrated information about it, whilst rubbishing me and IIT, all the while your expressions prove you wrong. You have got to laugh?

Then when you stop laughing, you have got to come on board. Information is the way to link things. Think about it.

All you are demonstrating is that you don't understand your own sources.

Consciousness as a neural process is as much about differentiation as integration. So any simple claim about "quantities of information" is entirely missing the point.

That is why I prefer architectural approaches like Friston, Grossberg and Freeman (to name a few) that positively emphasise the brain's ability to ignore the world - to limit its "information". They get into what is going on at a deeper conceptual level.

Tononi isn't wrong. He just offers the shallow end of the pool story. ITT builds in the faulty psychology of Cartesian representationalism. And that is the bit you have picked up on and presented here. — apokrisis

All of this is an expression of your consciousness. Note, it is vaguely integrated.

It is integrated information! :lol:

↪Pop
I think we'll just have to put up with being bombarded by weird opinions and little curiosity.

Anyway, next week:. the holographic principle for dummies. :cool: — frank

:up: Looking forward to it.

That particular equivalence applies at the Planck scale. So it has nothing to do with the equivalence scale that actually matters for life and mind. — apokrisis

Are you saying that the Planck scale is irrelevant to life and mind? Did they just pop into existence separated from the foundations supporting them?

↪Pop The Carl Popper method of negating an argument is dependent on how you define information and your definition is clearly untestable. Your perception of (Matter-Information) is a hallucination of your mind. — Mark Nyquist

It is an integration of information. "What is information" is what this thread is supposed to be about.

So (Matter-Information)? That seems like a new kind of dualism. Are brains even required?
This is better:
Matter--->Brain(Information; the perception of matter). — Mark Nyquist

IIT is panpsychist. Mass - energy - information is the new way forward. :smile: The mass-energy-information equivalence principle

Very familiar. — apokrisis

Then what is this all about?

He is using the folk confusions over both quantum theory and information theory to make a simple-minded monist claim where information states = conscious states ... because "information integration", or "information parallelism", or whatever monist hand-waving confusion seems to serve the purpose. — apokrisis

The statement “everything is information” is also applicable to you. If you cannot provide something that is not information, It follows, everything is information, including consciousness. Note the information in consciousness is integrated.

And I also agree Pop is doing the opposite of conflating everything that ought to be kept separate. He is using the folk confusions over both quantum theory and information theory to make a simple-minded monist claim where information states = conscious states ... because "information integration", or "information parallelism", or whatever monist hand-waving confusion seems to serve the purpose. — apokrisis

Are you familiar with IIT Theory? It seems not.

"According to the theory, just as the quantity of consciousness associated with a complex is determined by the amount of information that can be integrated among its elements, the quality of its consciousness is determined by the informational relationships that causally link its elements" - An information integration theory of consciousness

It's not a vague claim about 'everything being information'. — Wayfarer

I have provided you with a negatable statement. Very simple to negate!

In the OP I quoted some definitions. Not my definitions. The purpose of the thread is to answer what is Information? I have my ideas, but I am willing to listen. Do you have a definition? When all things are considered a definition is a difficult thing to deduce.

I'm quite surprised by your attitude. Lately you have provided some great links to the Royal Society, on how biology was going down the informational route. As I see it, this is the wider trend in science in general. I see nothing controversial about it.

In that article, the application to ‘information’ is mainly in respect of using entanglement to provide secure communications a.k.a. ‘quantum cryptography’. Nowhere does it say that information is a constituent of matter, unless I missed it. — Wayfarer

"In this regard, in 1999, one of us (A.Z.) has put forward an idea which connects the concept of information with the notion of elementary systems. For the subsequent line of thought, we first have to make ourselves awareof the fact that our description of the physical world is represented by propositions, i.e. by logical statements about it. These propositions concern classical measurement results. Therefore, the measurement results must be irreducible primitives of any interpretation. And second, that we have knowledge or information about an object only through observations, i.e. by interrogating nature through yes-no questions.It does not make any sense to talk about reality without the INFORMATION about it." - Zeilinger

But he wasn’t a philosopher. — Wayfarer

As I understand it, initially Shannon called it a theory of communication.

And why does every 'thing' need to irreducibly contain information? — Mark Nyquist

It is logical. If we are to know about it, it will be via information of it. This is the simple reality.
Everything is information. You can negate ( Popper ) this statement by providing something that is not information! Don't do this at home, it is not logically possible. :smile:

It follows information is a co-element of any substance.

Quantum Information and Randomness

Once we start to describe a substance, we start describing its form , whether it be chemical, electrical, physical, etc. The way the form of a substance connects with its surroundings, is information of how substances are connected. So there is a lateral informational flow, of substance and it's surroundings, contained within our personal perspective of the object / substance. In the end everything is connected via information.

Thanks for the link. I need a break. I'll read it later and comment.

But the question arises, what is the faculty that is performing that? There seems to be an ordering principle at work. And I don't know if that faculty can be understood in terms of 'information' or whether it exists on another level altogether. — Wayfarer

What integrates the information In mind and everywhere else, is the big question? I think it is the anthropic principle. In certain ordered pockets of the universe the combined laws of nature are already integrated, forcing everything to self organize, forcing all the distinctive matter to integrate as best it can.
It is a way to understand how a ribosome and RNA integrate in the cellular environment. If they are informational bodies that can only integrate with each other in a certain way and with nothing else, would explain the mind element that is missing from cellular biology.

But it's still a leap from there to the claim that 'everything is information' in a metaphysical sense, as if in itself this idea comprises a grand philosophical synthesis. It's part of the picture, but not the whole picture. — Wayfarer

Philosophy of Information ( P.I ) is not well received in philosophical circles, reading between the lines ( SEP ), for this very reason, that it can in its own right narrate a grand synthesis.

As to whether you believe it or not, is up to you. :smile:

Otherwise, saying 'everything is information' means very little in my opinion. Something which explains everything, explains nothing, because it's too general to be meaningful. And 'everything is information' fails for that reason. — Wayfarer

I did comment on this earlier.

At least matter or matter-energy can be defined within a range by physics. The term 'information' is polysemic, meaning it has many different definitions in different contexts. So saying that 'everything is information' is not a meaningful statement, in my view. — Wayfarer

Yet everything is information, from an idealistic perspective. Consciousness has an ability to grey out certain information, to focus on specific information. As stated earlier, If we could grey out all information, nothing would be distinct, there would be no consciousness.

I am mindful of what you are saying, and admit there are pros and cons to this approach, but given the information on hand, this is a way towards an understanding.

I am also mindful that this might present a threat to those whos epistemic stance is one of no understanding.

One is that attention creates a grand central station where integration takes place. — frank

Yeah, everything is a self organizing system. And the thing being organized is information.

What are your thoughts, queries, arguments, definitions, and insights? It would be great to have a general understanding of information on this forum. — Pop

Where in this statement is there an invite for unreasoned derision?

Reasoned argument is always welcome. Much has been stated, there is plenty of meat to work on.

And understood would imply it fits already established informational structure.
— Pop

That's in the previous post. :up: — frank

So it holds up pretty well. No substantive counterarguments thus far.

That would be how information integrates in mind. What makes information integrate generally is the big question?

Thanks for the pointers. Yes, I'm breaking some rules I'm sure, in changing the camera angle. It is a powerful concept, but also a difficult one since every Thing is information. So it risks itself becoming as you say, a uniformity. Still it is the only pathway that I have found that goes from start to finish. So as a basis of an understanding, it seems quite plausible.

information is data plus meaning — frank

What is meaning in this context? If it is understood, it is meaningful? And understood would imply it fits already established informational structure. Like in constructivism, If it does not fit established informational structure ( knowledge ), it can not be understood, and so is meaningless.

And if objects literally process information, then we have a bunch of intelligence all around us. — Manuel

There is a way to understand things that leads to this conclusion, namely Panpsychism.

The evolution of informational structure might be a way to understand how inanimate matter could become animated.

Initially, before neurons, information was memorized in the form of things. DNA is an example of this. It is data / code as physical structure.

The shape that things take. — Olivier5

:up:

In a moment of consciousness All of one’s historical information ( biological and social ), bodily sensation, and environmental information is integrated to a point,
— Pop

What does that mean? — Banno

Informational structure goes all the way down. Assuming electromagnetism is the fundamental substance, then a Wavicle is the finest grain of reality. When two Wavicles integrate, it is their information ( frequency and amplitude ) that is combined. This Wavicular combination continues until the energy density becomes an elementary particle. The elementary particles combine to form atoms, atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form proteins, proteins combine to form cellular structure, on, and on. What is combining is the form of one substance with another - so it is information that is combining. We evolve as an informational structure. This is also true for all our social history, where experience creates informational structure as per neuroplasticity. Environmental data has its neural correlates. So, a moment of consciousness is created when all of this information comes to a point.

In the end Consciousness = integrated information

1.The opening paragraph is at best dubious, perhaps nonsense. — Banno

Specific reasons?

2. The posited definitions are ambiguous — Banno

Specific reasons?

3. Much of the discussion that follows is unverifiable, metaphysical meandering. — Banno

Specific reasons. pick an example state your reasons, and we can take it from there.

So does that mean information not personally confirmed are but clues? Lies? Possibilities? Relative? — Outlander

This reminds me of the Chinese whisper? But I'm still not sure what your point is?

Complexity cannot 'start'.

That is magical thinking, a fantasy. illogical. — hope

Are you denying the big bang?

But you chose the quote, so presumably you think it has some merit. What I am pointing to it the capacity for this thread to be nonsense disguised as physics. — Banno

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. But If you are going to meaningfully engage with the thread then please point out the arguments and logic that are flawed, and specify in detail why. That sort of engagement would be valuable. I kind of have an intuition about this. It is far from being a fixed, and established ideology in my mind, but is on its way there. So I would value some substantive counterarguments.

Complexity is eternal, and eternally changing. — hope

But not prior to the big bang. Complexity starts after the big bang.

Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it answers the question of "What an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and the nature of its characteristics.
— Pop

That is more theology than physics. — Banno

That is a quote from Wikipedia. Your argument is with them!

Pop To me it's whatever informs the spin of entangled particle when another is observed. — Cheshire

Without getting into QM, etc. I think you are agreeing that the integrated laws of nature do that.

If function follows form, there is a causality at play.
— Pop

Neither mind nor brain follow each other. They happen at the same time. — hope

I don't think so . I think there is a causal process that makes information integrate that is external to brains, that ultimately crates brains, that is itself a mind. I'm thinking of the anthropic principle - the integrated laws of the universe causing information to integrate.

The simplest is what we call data. The origin of data is information — Cheshire

Yes, Information is something irreducible, and ultimate. Rather godlike, but entirely physical, for a monist at least.

Notice the similarity between information and god?

Are you are inventing a new theology?
seconds ago — Banno

Ha, Ha. It does seem a little like that. But I am describing something physical.

When you enter the room and confirm whether said bottle is green, blue, or even existent for that matter, does that change? Why? — Outlander

Experience. We trust in experience above all other information?