Trees / plants also share nutrients and exist as a community.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/

Does it logically follow, that he could even commit suicide? Why or why not? — Corvus

Frustrated by humanity, God committed suicide. :sad: Who can blame him?

more unconscious activity going on than conscious— leaving aside more complex behavior, which is itself largely unconscious (though it does vary).
— Xtrix
There’s nothing to be convinced of— it’s a simple fact.
— Xtrix
:100: :up:[/quote]

Unconscious doesn’t have to mean automatic and split off from consciousness. Enactive, embodied approaches to cognition reveal the body as integrated with mind in a complex and inseparable fashion — Joshs

In the driving example, something pays attention to driving even when one believes he is not, and that something is the very same person who believes he is not paying attention to driving. — NOS4A2

It is curious how we are able to accept that information self organizes everywhere else but in the human brain. :chin: though neuroplasticity tells us exactly this.

See my post above.

If there were no selves no one would know a reality exists. Knowing only happens because we are selves. — Andrew4Handel

This sounds intuitively correct, like the Earth being flat, but it has logical problems.

Any sort of self concept must arise as a product of understanding, where understanding is a body of integrated information . So a "self" comes after the fact, once a body of information is already established, so is not a primal entity. It is an emergent psychological entity in evolutionary psychology:


The Symbolic Self in Evolutionary Context

Abstract:
" Our central thesis in this article is that the symbolic self
is an adaptation. That is, we argue that the symbolic self is a
broad-based capacity that was selected and distributed in the
human population because of its high adaptive significance."

The self is so embedded in the psychology of modern humanity. The idea that it is a self that integrates information, and thus has thoughts is central to modern thought - "I think therefore I am" - But the "I" is an evolutionary adaptation. At some point in our evolution it did not exist, but we had thoughts just the same.

If self awareness is an emergent aspect of consciousness, then so too must be a self concept.

Does this universal exist intrinsically to everyThing? Or does this universal exist in the background ubiquitously, such that everything within it self organizes by integrating information?

In considering this question, I have concluded that the situations posed are effectively equal.

Could be. I think we each have our own historical information which we use to understand things with, and we do it in our own style / way. But that we integrate information, is a given in this universe. And at the deepest depth, what we identify with is this universal.

Subconscious trains of thoughts via for attention, and among these alternatives the brain constructs scenarios of consequences and then collapses them into the best result. — PoeticUniverse

Something like that. I don't know the details absolutely. ** I think of it as the object of perception being in superposition of an entangled body of memorized information, where integration causes understanding.

Consciousness is

Intrinsic—my own, as independent;

Compositional—structured with many phenomenological distinctions;

Informational—particular and specific;

Integrated/Whole—unified and irreducible;

Exclusive—definite content, no more no less. — PoeticUniverse

All this is true. It can be understood as a body of information, that integrates more information onto itself, along its path. But can not integrate it willy nilly, it must fit onto established information. This is necessary firstly to form understanding ( constructivism ), and then to create an integrated state of information ( consciousness ). New information has to integrate with old - it only fits a certain way (Neuroplasticity ).

That information integrates on its own is a bit of a mind bender initially.

What we identify with most deeply is the thing that integrates the information? — Pop

In other words worth repeating, we are indeed the universe come to life, made in its image — PoeticUniverse

Yes. The clue is that information integrates on its own And deep down, we identify with / as the thing that integrates the information. But when we look around, we see that information integration is not a thing unique to ourselves. Everything integrates information, because information integrates on its own ( in this universe ).

What we identify with most deeply is the thing that integrates the information?

Our existence, necessarily, is finite,
— PoeticUniverse

This depends on what we identify with. — Pop

Investigating the zero-sum balance some more… — PoeticUniverse

I haven't found cosmology or physics to be very fruitful when it comes to this sort of understanding. The Big Bang seems plausible, but the CMB has problems, and a closed universe needs a boundary, as per John Wheeler - how thick is its boundary? What is the boundary of a boundary? ( infinite regress ).

My interest is consciousness ( more of a fixation then an interest ). I try to understand it from various paradigms, but mostly through a logical analysis. I have found I can reduce consciousness to three components - energy, information, and the thing causing them to self organize. The thing causing them to self organize is characterized by the anthropic principle. Assuming determinism ( with a slight element of randomness ), in order to ask the question why we exist, we require a causal universe that creates a being capable of asking the question. This is an unassailable logical loop that is applicable to every moment of consciousness, and applicable to all structure in the universe. This loop is relevant for all events / points in the universe - what is required is a universe that integrates information - ours does and we are a product of this function. In a sense, we are an expression of the universe.

I think the big bang is well established by E=mc2, but otherwise there is so little reliable and cross verifiable information. We may be in a Desitter universe, an infinite loop universe, a bubble amongst many bubbles. A multiverse. All these explanations would fit the data on hand.

This is one of the absolutes that is out of reach to us, imo.

Our existence, necessarily, is finite, — PoeticUniverse

This depends on what we identify with.

Is Existence a zero-balance tree
Of opposites?: matter and its anti,
The weak vs. strong force, charge polarity—
All from ‘nothing’, to form reality?

The universe weighs nothing at all: zero,
Plus it is electrically neutral.
The positive kinetic energy of ‘stuff’
Cancels the negative potential energy of gravity. — PoeticUniverse

This would also describe a pulsating universe. Like a heart beat?

'Eternal' not coming from anything…
Seems the same as saying it's ‘from nothing’. — PoeticUniverse

The way I understand nothing, is that it provides no information. So I couldn't say whether it is eternal, or otherwise.

The above statement relates to identity and attachment, rather then the great eternal - whatever that may be.

In yogic logic, as you might be aware, the aim is to be a nobody. And one of the pleasures of life is to think about nothing.

Everything is something to a somebody, but everything is nothing to a nobody.

Look deeper into the evident zero-sum balance of the Universe/Cosmos? — PoeticUniverse

Yet here we are, and if zero sum turns out to be true, we still have some time to fill :smile: And what better way to do it than to describe our existence?

I do believe that as selves we have more of conscious choice in choosing how and what to select in the assembling of our lives. — Jack Cummins

In my understanding a body of information ( a self ) integrates more information onto itself, in every moment of consciousness. The information cannot fit any old way. The established body of information has its own momentum, so is biased in how it integrates new information along its path. This suggests a determinism, but there is also a slight element of randomness in regard to how well new information can be integrated with the old. This inability to integrate new and old information causes novel information integration, and so a slight shift in what constitutes a self.

I am sure that language plays a clear role in this and the whole nature of self-consciousness entails language. It gives us the framework for conceptualizing, constructing identity and the framework of our specific consciousness, — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree. Words are symbols (of information), and language is a pattern of symbols. Language express our unique patterns of information entanglement ( integration ), so expresses aspects of our peculiar consciousness.

Does anyone have any absolute, objective understanding of reality?

We can be certain there is no certainty! :lol:

Given everything is relative, and relational, in an ongoing evolutionary process. Even mathematics incurs Gödel's incompleteness.

:100:

Make love not philosophy! :lol:

I think that is very sensible. But I find there are still things I don't quite understand, and would like to resolve further. Once this ball starts rolling it is difficult to stop.

I thought you might say: "we can be certain there is no certainty!" :lol:

The quest is ended. — PoeticUniverse

If the quest is ended - What now? :lol:

Now we can make art with some certainty?

:clap: I Googled your name, and I see you are not new to this. Well done. :up:

I think that your idea of self as being an aspect of self organization does make a lot of sense to me — Jack Cummins

But, it think that we do develop systems of information, as evident in memories and this is inherent in our sense of identity and self. — Jack Cummins

When I think about my own development of self and identity, it is bound up with significant memories — Jack Cummins

In systems and complexity theory, a naturally occurring thing is a "self" organizing system. A system organizes on it's own, and thus through this process creates a self. A system can be composed of various things in different ways, that through interrelation, self organize to some sort of singular thing ( a collective consciousness ). The multiplicity of things that they are and what they do, can be captured by the term "information". Information composes their structure, and how they act is information. It follows "a self is information about how information has organized itself " - this captures all systems, including humanity.

Normally what we are is the result of our experience ( memories ). Strictly speaking what we are is the result of DNA data, experience, and point in space ( relativity ) ( perspective ). These are all information about us. So, in the end, information put together in a particular way, in our unique way, is what we are, what we become, and this continues evolving in an ongoing process.

Things, and people, assemble themselves into themselves is the observation. Why should things assemble themselves into themselves is the question?

Because we have no access to absolutes, we must develop a relativistic understanding. :up: How fortunate this coincides with the minimum condition necessary for a state of integrated information ( consciousness ) - the relating of one thing to another,.

So, the relationship of one symbol to another is the minimum condition of consciousness ( start ), but there would seem to be no maximum condition of consciousness ( finish ) , that I can conceive at least. So IT looks like a process of accumulating information. It starts with the relationship of one thing to another and then continues to evolve, seemingly without end.

I have found some degree of understanding by treating all information as a single substance creating all structure, physical and mental - like Chalmers. This provides a simple picture of an energetic paradigm where information and energy ( electromagnetism ) cause structure. The structure builds for a time and then collapses, only to start rebuilding again, whilst living structure has found a way to continue the information, through life, for now at least. Whilst the most complex living structure has found ways preserve their information (aspects of themselves) through the things that they make. Which you are doing. :up:

I think your animated work is the strongest. How long did the "Vault of Everything" take to make?

Could it be the ground of all being itself? — PoeticUniverse

:up: At the heart of a "self" is a "universal", molding information onto itself.

Read again what I actually wrote, Jack. "Self" is not encoded, it is the cell itself that is solely excluded from itself as a nutrients resource. — 180 Proof

Metabolism is both anabolism and catabolism.

Autophagy is the recycling process by which our cells keep themselves young. They continually break down and renew small parts of themselves in a kind of self-digestion; this helps to counteract harmful deposits which may form. Autophagy -- Greek for "to eat oneself"

I must admit, you do ask good questions. You ask the pertinent questions :up:

The self is information about the way information has organized itself. It is an ongoing process of information integration and accumulation and rationalization. As new information is integrated, some old information is discarded, in an evolutionary manner.

I think that the nature of information is extremely interesting, but one aspect of this which I have been aware of related to it during to it the idea of noise, as discussed in a recent book by Daniel Kahneman et al, called, 'Noise'. I have only read about it and looked at the book casually in a bookshop, but it does indicate that our understanding of life is within a background of general noise, often as a form of hindrance. — Jack Cummins

There is lots of noise, but when we focus on one aspect of it, it becomes a signal. Then, when we refocus to another aspect of it, the original signal becomes noise.

All noise is a potential signal. The spectrum of light is very broad, but normally we focus on a narrow range of it.

[...] information [...] information [...] information [...] information [...]
— Pop

Hypostatization extraordinaire? — jorndoe

This is a very broad accusation. I think for it to be meaningful, you would have to provide an example, and then we could work through the details.

Isnt organization anticipative? And if so, doesn’t that make it intentionally oriented?
Therex are mathematical definitions of information , like Shannon’s. Is that what you have in mind in your use of the word? — Joshs

Self organization, as you would be aware, is complicated - it achieves a number of functions. It allows a self to navigate the world, and in the process creates a self. Consciousness is anticipative, but how can one anticipate anything without a body of integrated information? Before any sort of intention can form, a body of integrated information must exist. After all, it is this body of integrated information that interacts with external information.

A self is information about the way information has organized itself. :smile: Initially DNA data would provide a body of information, and then senses stream in environmental information, the body of information integrates the sense data and out of this forms an intention ( constructivist style ). In the big picture, what is happening is that information is accumulating information onto itself, and growing in the process.

Shannon information theory is very focused and restricted to communicated information in technological / industrial settings. He says so himself in a quote that I can not find. :grimace: I use the term in it's broadest possible sense. Inform - to give form to a substance. Hence the patterns of a substance is information. Hence everything is information. There are pros and cons to this. The Zeilinger paper below acknowledges the primacy of information.

Quantum Information and Randomness Johannes Kofler and Anton Zeilinger

I give up.

To "begin" it is only necessary to create movement — MondoR

Yes, but where can that possibly come from other than integrated information?

The first information is provided by sense data .

There is no information until there is the first movement and observation (of itself). — MondoR

This is incorrect. You need a cause for the first movement, and the only one at your disposal is integrated information.

The fundamental thing, "before anything can happen" is that information needs to be integrated, from that integrated information a thought to experiment might arise.

The thing that is integrated is information. This leads to an experiment being performed, this creates more information that is integrated, which leads to more experiments, and so on.

Organizing is an aspect of the Mind's intention to create — MondoR

I think you need to tidy this up a little. Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information.

Emotions are way of sharing and experiencing, just like the other senses. For dinner reason, people tend to differentiate them into different categories. Probably because some types of experiencing are more directly tied to a physical nervous systems. — MondoR

We don't have a universally accepted theory of emotions. What they are has been interpreted in various ways. I see them as a force like quality that we feel - this feeling provides impetus to self organize. In my understanding consciousness = self organization.

Something like 'All of life’s entities embrace one another, including cells, organisms, species, and biotope' could add to the scientific aspect. — PoeticUniverse

Could be, I would have said interact - things arise from interactions with other things. Interrelational evolution is the only game in town, as far as I can see.

It would be more than emotions/or feelings. It is Creative. Emotions and feelings are derivative of the creative impetus. — MondoR

What creates the emotion / feelings, requires a theory of emotion. I agree with you, I suspect it is something like what I wrote to creative universe. What do you suspect?

Thus both our consciousness and the holistic universe, each having a singular nature, is the clue. — PoeticUniverse

I think so. At the heart of every "self" is a universal. That universal would have to be something like the anthropic principle - the combined laws of the universe, or put another way - the cause of integrated information in the universe.

Chalmers has it that information is fundamental and can express itself in two ways, in consciousness and in matter. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, information creates physical structure and mental structure, but for a monist they are identical, where mental structure is neuroplasticity.

Quantum entanglement suggests that each particle has the entire 3-D or 4-D map of the universe, the information ever updated, the universe being as a single entity. While this may not be consciousness at the level we have, it may help the universe accomplish something of the movements of particles and fields in their energy, mass, and momentum, in some global way that goes forward overall. — PoeticUniverse

Yes I think so. It looks like a self organizing system. But there is only so much we can conclude, from so little information. I try to keep my speculation fairly local, to things that I can reasonable cross verify.

It is still that the apparent atoms and molecules make the happenings, via physical-chemical reactions; how–ever, this observation cannot be equated to an 'explanation', for we must wonder what underlies the chemical mattering and reacting that seems to have a unity of direction to it. — PoeticUniverse

A system understood as energy and information self organizing in relation to other systems made of the same stuff doing the same thing, and thus accumulating information in the process, where the accumulated information creates the form of the system, is how I have come to understand it. It is the only understanding that I am aware of that captures everything.

Mind has Memory (information), but it also is imbued with a creative impetus. — MondoR

:up: That would be emotion / feeling driving the integration of information, thereby creating a self organizing system.

It is the nature of Mind/Memory. It is what transpires and takes shape. — MondoR

I agree. What I was trying to get at is that mind only deals with information. What it is learning, creating, and changing is information. No?

Everything is Mind, and Mind is always learning, creating, and changing. — MondoR

What is it learning , creating, and changing? Is it information?

The Poetic Universe — PoeticUniverse

This must be the first scientific poem I have ever seen. Artistically its an interesting idea.
I think you've got the gist of it. We may quibble over a few details, but not many.