Correlation is not causation. — hope

If function follows form, there is a causality at play.
You don't elaborate much so I have to guess what you mean precisely but I think we are roughly on the same page.

"Information" is anything that helps the mind make its map of the territory. — hope

I would assume that all thoughts have their neural correlates. So the map of the territory is a physical pattern that exists in a brain. The source of this patterning is an external world. So, the form of an external world causes neural patterning, which becomes our consciousness.

Ok. It will be this coming week. It's the same thing we've been talking about: why a thing is this, and not that. :nerd: — frank

Awesome!

Thanks for the great post. I believe you would say, like the information philosopher, that information can be abstracted from the substance, and this leads to a dualistic understanding. I would say, like Shannon, that the information "always" exists entangled in a substance, and so this leads to a monistic understanding. With a monistic understanding, Panpsychism is the natural conclusion, and the idea that function follows form might to be a way to narrate it.

I don't want to derail your thread, but exploring that would be a good way to get a grasp of what physicists mean by information. Do you want to go in that direction? — frank

Sure. But I am only vaguely familiar with it, so will be relying on you to explain it.

There is no information, only various amounts of complexity. — hope

If we can capture that complexity in a singular concept such as information, then we can deal with the enormous complexity quite simply.

The only thing that exists is patterns of substance. — hope

I think so, but I'm not at all certain, so am looking for counterarguments.

What exists is the evolution of informational structure, and humanity is the ultimate example of this.

Unique arrangements of substance. — hope

Sounds like "form" to me.

I don't see it as incoherent nonsense at all. I just wish you would provide some answers rather then further questions - I'm already drowning in those! :lol:

Shannon's information theory raises a similar, perhaps the same, issue. Roughly, the information that is understood, that gets through, is already established information. The information that does not get through, is the entropy of the message. This is the new information that has not been understood but is potentially the most valuable part of the message ** as it provides new information.

It all comes back to the problem of treating the observer, the experiencer, the perceiver as though they were not part of reality itself. As though there would be any science at all without them. — prothero

How would you define the observer? I would say the observer is a concept enmeshed in the informational content of consciousness. Not very humanizing I must admit, but the observer evolves in line with the system.

What is disinformation? From there you begin to gather what can be called an answer. — Outlander

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate please?

The black hole information paradox is where my interest in it started. — frank

Is a black hole a paradox?

In Hawking's original formulation of his radiation process, that radiation carried no information away with it. But as the black hole emits radiation, it evaporates, eventually disappearing altogether — hence the so-called black hole information paradox. - Google.

What are your thougts?

Hylomorphism: matter and form are codependent while constituting information. Form as the relationship between particulars is not exclusively responsible for function. — Enrique

Form, in its broadest sense, is what interacts. Function follows form.
When one Wavicle interacts with another, their information ( frequency and amplitude ) integrates to create a resultant Wavicle. The resultant Wavicle in its form ( frequency and amplitude ) memorizes the interaction. This being a fundamental interaction is present in everything subsequent to it, as the basis of everything subsequent to it.

Patterns are eternal — hope

What are patterns?

"Information" is just a word that stands for parts of reality the mind uses to create a map then used to avoid pain and attain pleasure. — hope

I mostly agree with your statement, but what is the evolutionary path, and underlying mechanism that causes this to be so?

Information is stored in this feedback loop. — Daniel

On further consideration, you are correct, strictly speaking, the message ( transmission ) contains the information that we receive, and it is likely to be lossy ( Shannon entropy ). But the transmission contains data not of the message, but of an object. We are conscious of the object described in the message, but the message itself is normally subconscious.

Information is a very broad concept. What I'm focusing on is how the form of an object ( in it's widest sense ) informs the message, which in turn informs neurobiology. Thus a pattern of data is physically transformed from object, to wavelengths of light, to be sensed, and ultimately causes a particular form in mind, in accordance with neuroplasticity.

How is this question - entierly sans information - different? What is "information" doing in that paragraph? — Banno

Information makes it all possible. Your version provides no reason. As a singular substance, nothing would be possible. But as distinct quantities with their own qualities interacting and integrating and evolving, something is possible.

The perturbations of a substance is "information" about it. It is these perturbations of various substances that are interacting, imo, and causing things to be. This extends to neurobiology where, I believe, every thought has its neural correlate, which I take to be some physical pattern.

information doesnt exist in reality, or in the mind. its just a word that stands for nothing lol — hope

I would have said everything is information, rather then nothing.

Clearly it's the currently unassailable missing dimension which directs the stuff of existence; of which we can certainly discuss; if we choose to. — Cheshire

I feel similarly. It is the primal stuff, as a co-element of any stuff. But it is so hard to pin down. If you have a simple definition I would be interested to hear it?

an object does not have information; an interaction does have information. — Daniel

I think what you are talking about is transmitted information? The only way for us to know a substance is through the information the substance possesses. The perturbations a substance possesses, its shape and size, texture, colour , smell, etc is information, and this gets transmitted to us via frequencies of light as sight, or discreet molecules as smell, etc.

Information is stored in this feedback loop. — Daniel

Unfortunately I don't understand the notation. I would say the qualities a substance possesses ( information ) interact with the qualities another substance possesses. A sponge interacting with water would soak up the water, whilst a rock interacting with water would sink to the bottom. So it's the qualities that interact and integrate.

If you are saying that in the absence of an interaction, information is irrelevant, then I would agree.

Whilst neurotransmitters have an effect on moods, they are not moods themselves. Moods are a function of consciousness, they exist regardless of the levels of neurotransmitters. However, changing the neurotransmitter balance, will have an effect on mood, as will changing the balance of any of the information that contributes to a moment of consciousness.

I have to go now, but I will make a thread on information in the next few days, so perhaps we can take it up again there.

Information is not meaning. — Banno

I think Joshs covered it well.

Emotions and concepts are not miscible. There is no agreement as to what emotions are. I have a theory, but so do many others.

The issue as I see it, is what makes information integrate? And I postulate the anthropic principle ( the combined laws of the universe ) makes information integrate. So what we feel is those laws making our information integrate.

So you're saying that things like the desire and sorrow of a certain person at a certain time are equivalent to a unique neurological signature, the associated information of which can be transmitted over some (lossy) media.

I think you'd like Integrateted Information theory. Have you read about it? — frank

Yes, we have discussed IIT.

The pattern is one aspect of consciousness. There is also a force acting on the neurological patterning. The form the pattern takes, how it is integrated, is driven by an emotional force. What this emotional force is precisely is a mystery. But it is significant to note, the emotional force is not equal to the pattern. Cannot be conceptualized as a pattern can be. Rather is something causing the pattern to integrate in a certain way.

But perhaps all that is going on is not individual but public. It's clear that there are shared activities around our utterances. We might look to these rather than to an inferred private item that is transferred from one to the other. — Banno

A piece of art is like a single child who grows up to be a million different people, each in its own psychic universe. — frank

If I follow my aesthetics while gardening, am I using the scene around me to transmit information about my neurological states? — frank

Initially I missed your point. Yes, I would say the scene around you and your neural states are the same thing. And this is what is so fascinating, and so difficult to get about information, in that it has its origins in, as you say, the distinction, or the perturbations, the distinctive patterns, or that it is "the difference that makes a difference" -Bateson..

** It is the integration of these differences that creates consciousness.

Could be. I often wonder what an aesthetic sense really is. If I follow my aesthetics while gardening, am I using the scene around me to transmit information about my neurological states? — frank

You are making choices, and they are often aesthetic choices.

You can make your garden as you personally would like to see it, or you can make it to conform to an aesthetic sense of what a garden should look like in your community.

An artist makes these same choices. They can discover for themselves what their personal aesthetic is, or they can pick a demographic, and conceive what an average understanding of art is in that demographic, and make an art product accordingly. This is what I would call Kitch art.

To some extent, this is also the case for contemporary artists. They make art to interact with an art scene.

This is the difference between good art and bad art. Not so much a matter of artworthiness, but a matter of whether that communication took effect, and had the desired result.

Are you identifying the artist's neurological states as the source data? Then the artwork is the channel and the viewer is receiving information that she uses to reconstruct the artist's neurological states in her own head? — frank

Exactly. That is precisely what I'm trying to get at. In some sense the pattern in one mind becomes a pattern in another mind, and If it resonates similarly in both minds, then it is understood, becomes meaningful, and is successful.

All true. I would just say the piece itself is like a seed. Some seed falls on rocky soil and comes to nothing. Some seed falls on fertile soil and becomes a jungle. — frank

This relates to what @Joshs is saying above and what Shannon calls entropy of information. The information that is understood is in some way already established information. The information that is not understood is potentially new information, that may in time be understood, through a revisiting and reinterpretation of the work.

A piece of art is like a single child who grows up to be a million different people, each in its own psychic universe. — frank

That is spot on, and beautifully expressed. :up:

You're describing art as if it's like a phone call. I think it can be sort of like that, but sometimes an artist might make a painting that she herself doesn't understand, and wouldn't be able to put the experience of creating it in words. — frank

Yes, that is true. Nevertheless the work is always presented within a structure, and is symbolic of the artist's mind activity, and so as structured information makes its way to the mind of another, where it either resonates or does not. I have a definition of art here.

I admit I could have phrased it better - I'll work on it. :smile:

There isn't a clear and simple definition of information. I am using the Platonic kind - the perturbation of a substance is information about it. How everything arises from this, including meaning is not obvious. It really needs much more description and debate, so I would prefer to do in a dedicated thread, which I hope you will contribute to.

Information was moved.
— Pop
- like that. Maybe this needs a thread of its own.) — Banno

Yes, I've been meaning to do a "What is information thread", but time is a little constrained at the moment. Perhaps on the weekend.

so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved. — Banno

Information was moved.

Information always exists as, and travels over, a physical substrate - as the perturbations of the substrate.

The perturbations ( neural activity ) in an artist's mind, are expressed in their actions or an artefact, the information of which is conveyed to the audience as vibration ( music ), or light waves, to be reconstituted as perturbations of neural activity.

So the mind activity of one mind finds it's way into another mind, via information.

Would mind independent objects be what Kant called "Thing-in-Itself"? Kant seems think they exist, but outside of the reason's boundary. They cannot be known, but are postulated? — Corvus

I think you have the gist of it. It makes no sense to infer a mind independent object, since we can never encounter them , since we need to construe ( perceive in terms of historical understanding ) an object with our mind before we can become conscious of it. This is how constructivism would put it, and it leads to an idealistic understanding.

In that kind of state, you are paying attention, fully aware, and actively participating in the world. — T Clark

:up:

This is exactly the issue I’ve been working on. The cut seems pretty sharp when you are talking about the coded information vs the material product, but in fact we do then have the further issue of precisely how the two sides interact. — apokrisis

In considering issues like this, I have come to the conclusion that information organizes on its own. That information is self organizing due to the anthropic principle. Initially this sounds weird, as we identify most deeply with that which organizes the information - we do the thinking. But this sorts itself out if we conceive of ourselves as a body of information ( which to my mind is the best definition consistent with constructivim ). Then it is the case that information organizes the information!

This is a sort of melding of constructivism and informational systems theory.

**The Ribosome and RNA are bodies of information, and they are constrained by this in how they can integrate.

The human system is all about the entropy and does near zero recycling. Why would we expect it to last much longer in any form? Why would it deserve to with such a disregard of basic design principles?

Will big tech save us? I give you as prime examples the marvels of unrepairable Apple phones, the entropic idiocy of bitcoins, and the big oil sponsored ruse of “green hydrogen. :grin: — apokrisis

It's so disappointing isn't it? I cannot see any near term solutions. But theoretically, the entropy build up should create even greater molecular complexity, so for humanity this might lead to a higher consciousness - just a wild hopeful thought. :smile:

I think it is the consciousness and thought which is able to tell the subject and object, the internal and external, known, unknown, the objects and limitation of reason, and the objects of intuition and faith. — Corvus

I think I understand what you mean - in a sense you are saying there is no mind independent object, and all this thinking about it never leaves mind. I agree, and believe idealism would agree with you.

It's like the boundary between a mountain and a valley. We think of a mountain as an independent thing, not noticing how the concept is bound to it's negation. If there were no valleys, there would be no mountains and vice versa. We're bound to divide things up like that for the sake of explanations and narratives. — frank

:up: I like that explanation.

I left something important out. I know that what I call experience, wordless awareness, is different from knowing or understanding using language. It feels different in a profound way. It uses different parts of me. If you don't feel that same difference, then there's probably not much further we can go with this discussion. — T Clark

In Yogic logic, one of the practices is to turn thought off completely. Such a mental state is surprisingly innately pleasant, for me at least. Walking along a beach, or through a forest, just absorbing it thoughtlessly and nonjudgmentally has this affect of connecting me with the surroundings that is lost once thought returns.

The epistemic cut approach works better as it doesn’t try to reduce the world to the model anymore than it reduces the model to the world. — apokrisis

Ha, ha. But a subject object assumption has huge consequences for understanding.
Mostly I like your thinking, but I sense you share with Pattee, a dualistic bias. Of course this is your prerogative, but the epistemic cut has Cartesian origins, so does not make much sense to me.

Would Pattee say a Ribosome makes an epistemic cut in regard to an RNA? Would he, like Descartes, make an epistemic cut when the object is his body? What about in a state of introspection?

My introduction to systems thinking is fairly recent. I have found info dynamics to be far more instructive then thermodynamics. Information is the co-element of any substance. If a substance beyond energy ( electromagnetism ) is ever discovered, we will know of it from the information we have of it.
As Pattee says himself:

"As a matter of practice, symbolic expressions do not appear to take place by physical necessity,
nor do physical laws appear to restrict symbol sequences (e.g. Hoffmeyer and Emmeche, 1991).
Because of this, some mathematicians and physicists believe in the reality of true Platonic
symbol systems independent of physical laws. Nevertheless, it is the case that no symbol vehicle
or symbolic operation can evade physical laws. This means that in spite of the apparent
autonomy of biological information, physical laws impose several conditions on the material
embodiment of the different forms of information."
Published in Biological Theory, Summer 2006, Vol. 1, No. 3: 224–226.
The Physics of Autonomous Biological Information

And this Zeilinger paper: Quantum Information and Randomness Johannes Kofler and Anton Zeilinger

Instead, there is an interaction between a self and the world, an organism and an environment, where each has a specific reciprocal effect. The order in one is increased to the degree the order in the other is dissipated. — apokrisis

I would agree that there is an interrelational evolution. The entropy in the past was well dissipated, but this is changing now as we head toward hot house earth. Possibly we are already seeing the effects. The increase in entropy will require a corresponding increase in order, If we are to survive. The dissipation bottleneck will effect everything, without exception. I wonder what obscure insights you might have, apart from the obvious?

Then I could carefully protect my favourite coffee cup - treating it as an extension of my self - or carelessly dispose of a beer bottle by smashing it against the nearest wall because I generally regard it and my environment as non-self - a realm of waste, an entropic heat sink. — apokrisis

I think future generations are going to be paying for this sort of thinking. They will look back and blame this sort of thinking for the trashing of the earth. This sort of thinking arises from dualism, of course I am as guilty as anybody else, but I would dearly like to promote a different way of thinking. One where mother earth is respected, as a consequence of the way people think about themselves as being at one
with the earth and each other ( monism ) ( panpsychism ).