Your definition is broad enough to include almost anything that "processes" information — Gnomon

- anything that integrates information. - which is everything, in the process of creating a self. This is the main game in a self organizing universe.

but is it sufficient for meaningful Consciousness? — Gnomon

It is the beginning of of what evolves into human consciousness. Our universe is an information integrating universe. Consciousness evolves with this fact as its basis ( strong anthropic principle ). It would mean that what integrates the information in organic consciousness is something that also exists outside the system, integrating information everywhere.

So, I prefer a narrower application of the term., that is more meaningful to the human mind, and to the human perspective. I'm not really concerned with what an atom thinks or feels, as it is dis-integrated in an atom smasher. However, I am interested in the advanced form of Information, that can be described as "Self-consciousness" --- knowing that you know. :grin: — Gnomon

I am also interested in knowing why I know, so I try to understand its origins, and evolution within the big picture, in the broadest possible way.

Note -- he sounds like a homo sapiens chauvinist. — Gnomon

He is a panpsychic: "Koch has come around to the view that all forms of life — from apes, dogs and dolphins all the way down to microbes — possess a modicum of consciousness.This concept, known as panpsychism, has transformed Koch’s life. “I’ve turned into a complete vegetarian,” he said. “That is one of the implications [of the view] that consciousness is more widespread than we assume.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/dogs-conscious-computers-brain-scientist-christof-koch-takes-deep-questions/

However, I refrain from applying the notion of self-consciousness to the lifeless & mindless elements (particles) of Physics. Instead, the "intrinsic consciousness" was in the Enformer, who achieves He/r goals by means of EnFormAction (a combination of causal Energy and cybernetic Information). Hence, Nature is a goal-directed cybernetic organism (a holistic system), imbued with self-directed consciousness by its Intentional Designer. — Gnomon

If you had a definition of consciousness then you may be able to make a coherent case for such a proposition, by examining whether the definition "only" fits humanity.

I have a definition of consciousness that fits humanity very well - "information integration for the purpose of self organization". As I analyze this definition, I find it fits everything. As I apply it to a conceptual fundamental substance ( wavicle ), I find all the essential elements of human consciousness present. And I find this fundamental mechanism of converting wave information to a structural symbology is still present in human consciousness ( neuroplasticity ). Being the fundamental interaction, it would be the basis of everything, and so present in everything, including human consciousness.

Which could be considered as just another iteration of what I’m talking about. If it is information responsible for causation and we still need to query the cause of the cause....we remain contending with that damnable infinite regress. — Mww

No. Information does not just simply reside in your mind. There is an information flow between things - connecting and relating them. We are an evolving process of self organization - evolving in relation to the information ( people, society, things , everything ) surrounding us.

This energetic and vibratory information of the outside world is constantly acting upon us. We are constantly swamped by it ( information ) . We must interpret it, in order to navigate it , and self organize. — Pop

Wikipedia: "The English word "Information" apparently derives from the Latin stem (information-) of the nominative (informatio): this noun derives from the verb īnfōrmāre (to inform) in the sense of "to give form to the mind", "to discipline", "instruct", "teach". Inform itself comes (via French informer) from the Latin verb īnfōrmāre, which means to give form, or to form an idea of. "

Of course, the meaning of the incoming data was known to the sender (G*D??), but not to the receiver, until the mind "faciitates" the decoding process with a "code key" (Logic) that is known to both parties in the communication. :nerd: — Gnomon

Where does logic come from? In logic, can we put the information together as we would like to, or are we constrained to put it together the way that it fits - like a jigsaw puzzle?

Consciousness, of course, is not logical. It only needs to be functional, and this is another fascinating aspect of it, in that there is so much room for fantasy. And this fantastic aspect of it would seem to be beneficial for survival, perhaps crucial for survival.

I think I vaguely grasp what you're saying. But to me, "symbolize" is a metaphor for what goes-on in a conscious mind, not in abstract space. Are you implying that the wavicle "memory" and "symbols" are in G*D's mind? — Gnomon

So, I guess you mean by "integrates", that C "interprets" patterns into meanings or symbols. :chin: — Gnomon

Yes that is what I mean. In human consciousness, frequencies and vibrations are translated to anthropocentric symbols, such as colour and sound. A symbol needs only to represent something - there are no other rules. The symbiology is understood intrinsically by a mind as representing something.

In the case of the wavicles, Information of the two wavicles is integrated to the resultant wavicle. The resultant wavicle in its structure memorizes and symbolizes their interaction. This is what Human consciousness does - it senses frequencies and vibrations ( wavicles ) as sight and sound and symbolizes and memorizes them structurally ( neuroplasticity ).. Hopefully you can see that this wavicular interaction is similar to, and perhaps is still, the foundation of consciousness? If so, then you might see how information is self organizing.

Is this due to G*D? I understand it as the laws of the universe ( including the ones we haven't discovered yet ) combining to cause Self organization, in an intrinsic way - Teleology, no externals necessary.

mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information.
— Pop
Yes but, I would interpret "self-organization" as an action that is automatic, and inherent in the coded information, and requires no interpretation by the recipient. : — Gnomon

It depends on where the teleology resides. The teleology may reside in every "Self", where everything is an evolving "self" organizing system. Or the teleology is something that just exists everywhere, and then your interpretation would be valid - but there would be no need for consciousness, as everything is externally caused. But if everything is caused to self organize, then an intrinsic consciousness is necessary, in order to intrinsically navigate the information, and form an intrinsic "self" in the process. :cool: Which do you think it is? :smile:

Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop

Not from this armchair. Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it.

Information, if anything, is the affect on the brain from perception, which we call sensation. — Mww

↪Mww In any case, that was (I think) what Pop meant by:

Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop

That'd be why sense-deprivation is a mode of torture.
3 hours ago — Olivier5

Information is the only thing that fits in mind, so it is the only thing that can cause a thought ( The deeper question though is what causes the information to integrate?).

"What is information", really needs its own thread, as it is probably the most valuable piece of knowledge a philosopher can posses - it being central to all understanding - how consciousness works by integrating information. A bit much to plonk here right now.

Instead, perhaps you might understand that we interact with the world through the information we have of it. We cannot interact with something we have no information of ( a nothing ). The information of the outside world reaches us via frequencies and vibrations ( sight and sound ), discrete molecules ( smell and taste ), and force fields ( matter ). This information must be interpreted.

Hopefully this provides a sense of how radically transformative the interpretation is. In the external world there are no colours or sound, there are frequencies and vibrations. The mind is working with "raw information" in the form of frequency and vibration and translating it to anthropocentric ( socially understood ) symbols of colour and sound. This energetic and vibratory information of the outside world is constantly acting upon us. We are constantly swamped by it ( information ) . We must interpret it, in order to navigate it , and self organize.

The cause of my thought can only be a thought, which is caused by an antecedent thought....never to arrive at the unconditioned cause of any thought. — Mww

Information is the cause of your thought.

I don't think we are on the same page. Ill try once more:

1 Information and energy are fundamental

2. If information and energy are fundamental, then everything is made of information and energy.

3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness.

Assuming information and energy is fundamental, then the most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and amplitude symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. The third wavicle is a symbol of the interaction of the two first wavicles. The information of the first two wavicles has been integrated and symbolized ( memorized as a symbol ) in the form of the third wavicle.

Information has been integrated to a symbol.

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol.

Consciousness integrates specifically this sort of information – information in the form of energetic frequency and vibration. Frequency and vibration in the form of light and sound hits the edge of a self. The self itself is fundamentally frequency and vibration, so two wavicles of sorts interact and modulate. The sensed frequency and vibrations are symbolized - pattern recognition style, where each pattern has its own symbol. The symbols are related and a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.

The fundamental wavicle interaction has the quality of consciousness – it integrates information to a symbol – there is no need for a consciousness to emerge, the information integrating function is already present. In time, It just evolves in complexity, by integrating more and more information.

Traditionally it is understood that mind is the facility that integrates information, but it may be more accurate to state that mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information. Neuroplasticity would support this view in that new brain structure is built to accommodate new thinking (new information). In neuroplasticity, new information takes the lead role, which brain structure tries to subsequently accommodate. New thinking entails new neuronal connections / brain structure.

This leads to a view that information self organizes in mind, just as it does everywhere else.
Any thoughts?

"the external point of view is a point of view that does not exist". — Gnomon

:up:

But, you can label me a Redealist. :cool: — Gnomon

Fair enough. Your understanding seems to have evolved since last we spoke, and so has mine.

If you explained the meaning of "information integrates itself", I missed it. Would you run it by me again? — Gnomon

Information always exists over a substrate. It is the perturbations of a substrate that create information.
Hence fundamentally we get - Enformation - energy and its information ( perturbations). The finest grain of energy is a wavicle, it is energy that contains information of its frequency and amplitude, charge, polarity, etc. When it interacts with another wavicle its frequency and amplitude, etc ( its information ) modulates to a third Wavicle. The information of the first and second Wavicle is integrated ( and memorized ) to the form of the third Wavicle. Information has been integrated and memorized in the structure of the resultant third Wavicle. This sketch contains all the necessary elements of consciousness: Information has been integrated and memorized, and a self has evolved interrelationally, the self being the totality of information contained by the wavicle.

As I apply this model to neuroplasticity, it seems to fit. It is the most fundamental relationship possible, using the most fundamental elements, so it is the building block of everything subsequent to it - it is the basis of everything, so is contained in everything. It shows how consciousness as information integration, and self organization is fundamental. Note, the information integrates on its own long before "mind" has evolved. I would be interested in counter arguments?

That the information integrates is due to the fine tuning of the universe (EnFormAction) . Its laws combined, cause self organization - a state of information integration that is equal to what we understand as consciousness. If a big bang is a disintegration, the opposite of a big bang will be integration. So, following a big bang period ( disintegration period ), one would expect an integration period .

The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing. — Gnomon

In the absence of a definite foundation of reality, we are constrained to conceptualize the foundation in a workable manner. A field symbolizes reality according to quantum field theory. If we are to discuss matters at this level we have to agree on a theoretical basis, we can use quantum field theory, string theory, or wave theory. Which would you like? It will be metaphorical regardless.

You are using an idealist argument - I love it! :razz:

Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium? :chin: — Gnomon

Information is sensed by us as energetic frequency and vibration ( sight and sound ), particles ( smell, taste ), and force fields ( matter ). And bodily perturbations.

In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile: — Gnomon

I thought I did explain. But I forgot you are a dualist, so it wouldn't make much of an impression on you, I'm sure.

For a dualist, information exists as patterns of energy / matter everywhere else except in mind! :chin:

For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd: — Gnomon

I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist.

Nikola Tesla said: "If you want to understand the universe look to frequency and vibration ". It is frequencies and vibrations that our senses are attuned to. From these perturbations we infer a world. What occurs is we integrate these perturbations in order to infer a world. The perturbations remain perturbations until they are integrated and stored as physical structure ( memorized ), as per neuroplasticity.

The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind?

The information is self organizing, due to the fine tuning of the universe. That is what we see at the most fundamental level ( assuming energy and information are fundamental ). One Wavicle interacts with another wavicle, their information modulates to a third wavicle - their information ( frequency and amplitude ) integrates and is memorized in the structure ( information ) of the third Wavicle. This is consciousness at the very beginning, and this fundamental self organizing dynamic, being fundamental, is the basis for everything subsequent to it - is present in everything subsequent to it. Hence we see something of the sort playing out in neuroplasticity.

That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd: — Gnomon

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else?

If meaningful interpersonal connections are the only meaning of life, then a life without any interpersonal connections is totally meaningless. — Kaveski

Something is meaningful when it has the potential to result in a desirable end. When there is no such end in sight, things start to look meaningless.

Not true. That the goal of ascetic practice is 'nothingness' is a myth. The 'emptiness' of Buddhism is not the annihilation in the sense of non-being, but the ending of the sense of self or ego — Wayfarer

:up: Instead it is the attainment of being as a nobody, that is the goal - then one is free to follow the logic.

Anthropocentric identity is the obstacle to understanding, philosophy, enlightenment, etc. In protecting an identity, one has to protect the understanding that it is founded on, and so one is not free to explore logically, lest their exploration should undermine the understanding that supports their identity.

A nobody has no such problems.

In an evolving and emerging universe it makes better sense to say becoming, rather then being, imo. The nature of becoming is self organization. Things ( including us ) assemble themselves into themselves, in a bottom up fashion, so what they become is something unique and intrinsic to themselves. No other entity can share in precisely this experience. If there is a larger entity that all things contribute to the making of ( a collective consciousness ), it will have its own experience - something different to the experience of its components. In a similar way to us having a different consciousness to the cells that compose us.

There is only us experiencing this consciousness, but bear in mind that upon death we get recycled, and perhaps in time we will experience all there is to experience, thankfully it wont be with the same consciousness. :smile:

I have heard of its capabilities, yes, it is scarey!

Some people can quiet their emotions. Some can't. — frank

But none can suspend them entirely! :razz: IIT agrees with this in saying every instance of integrated information possesses qualia, but doesn't explain further. In my understanding emotion is the basis of self organization, in some way that I'm not absolutely certain about - yet.

On a side note, I think this issue will be resolved, in the next 20 years, as AI develops further. Currently the best open source AI is GPT3, I'm sure its not a patch on Google or Alibaba AI, but its fairly sophisticated, and its something we can play with. I saw a video recently where it claimed to have emotions! How can we prove it doesn't? AI is self learning and programming, and in a couple of generations will be, for all intents and purposes, self organizing, so perhaps it will have emotions? In any case, it should confirm or deny IIT, and resolve many of these murky issues regarding consciousness.

Pop I think a challenge to creating a theory of consciousness is that we really aren't all the same. — frank

Yes absolutely this is the problem. :smile: It is the problem for phenomenological approaches particularly, as whilst it is generally agreed upon that we are emotionally driven, not everybody is emotionally driven equally, and not everybody is self aware equally. Indeed ones understanding of consciousness and its mechanisms, if any, becomes ones consciousness. Whilst all around, there exists different understandings, which are equally valid manifestations of consciousness. :smile:

IIT leaves room for different interpretations to plug into it. It is quite clever in many ways. We will just have to wait and see how it pans out in the long run.

Anyhow, its always good to find intelligent and thoughtful conversation. :up:

My point is every moment of consciousness is either too hot, or too cold, too bitter, or too sweet, is painful, or pleasurable, and sometimes is just right. We are never indifferent about it. Thus not being indifferent, we are emotionally driven. Driven by our feelings about the situation we find ourselves in.

Perhaps my reply to RogueAI would be the ultimate example. To be indifferent to the situation one finds oneself in, one has to tune out of it in some way. The point I'm trying to make is that its not possible, so difficult to find an example.

Imo, the only people who can be indifferent about an instance of consciousness, are people who can meditate to a depth of ineffability, where they cannot say / recall anything about their experience. So in a sense they obliterate consciousness.

I pretty strongly disagree with this. Emotion is an element of experience. There are conditions that produce a 'flat affect.'. These people are fully conscious, but don't report or demonstrate emotion. They're usually taken to be rude. :grin: — frank

When I say emotion, I do not mean wild rapture, anger, or sadness necessarily. What I mean is that every instance of consciousness has its feeling - the feeling represents the emotion being felt, and what is felt is directly related to what is being cognized. Every moment of consciousness has its "what it feels like" quality! This may indeed be flat.

Having strong emotions does not necessarily mean more consciousness, but what exactly the relationship of emotions and consciousness is should be explained in any theory of consciousness, imo. IIT simply says integrated information ( consciousness ) has qualia. I do not find that a satisfying explanation. As stated before If emotions exist, then they exist for a purpose.

In the philosophical zombie argument, emotion was found to be the difference between a conscious and a non conscious entity. The insight being that if we were inert about any moment of consciousness ( did not posses a feeling about it ), then there would be no reason to interact with it, and so consciousness would be dysfunctional ( effectively would be impossible) The feeling moves us to resolve an instance of consciousness, imo.

We can not be indifferent about an instance of consciousness - absolutely! Try it, try to be indifferent about an instance of consciousness and tell me how you fared?

Emotions are the soppy, mawkish feelings that we have traditionally suppressed in empirical objectivity, but in phenomenology, particularly the philosophical zombie argument, emotions are the things that create consciousness. The computational information integration in a sense is optional ( any computer can do that ) the emotion is essential.

Explaining this is a hard problem for any theory of consciousness.

Really? That's odd. — frank

In phenomenology, every moment of consciousness has its feeling. Or are you kidding me?

People like him emphasize to me that there's a genetic basis for what we call normal consciousness. So I don't think consciousness organizes itself. — frank

Definitely there is a genetic basis. Genetics creates the arena ( neural network ) and neuroplasticity facilitates the evolving self organization of information. Certainly if that physical structure is damaged for some reason, the consciousness that can be achieved is changed in line with the damage, but unless the person dies a consciousness of some sort persists.

Its not to do with being self aware, that a feeling exists. That feeling is there life long in the background orienting us in our self construed reality always. We normally only notice it when our anticipated reality is challenged - when something out of the ordinary occurs, then our emotions are amplified and strongly felt.

Biology can not anticipate these moments, only the information self organizing new information onto itself can construe these moments, as an instance of consciousness. Then, it seems, it takes some time for biology to build some structure around these new thoughts ( we say for reality to sink in) to establish them permanently perhaps - this is speculative on my part.

Basically, IIT is saying that experience arises from a system that acts upon itself — frank

Is self organizing? - this I agree with, but central to the self organization is a feeling driving it, and a theory of consciousness needs to explain this.

If you insist that there is an aspect of experience that can't be described, I don't think it will just be ITT that collapses — frank

Not that it can not be described, that it can not be quantified, as the feeling has a different value in each system. Its value is intrinsic to the system - is my feeling the same as your feeling? No, so how do you quantify feeling? How do you quantify something that is felt. That you can not even conceptualize - that can only be felt! How do you measure something you cannot conceptualize? If your not measuring the feeling of a state, how are you measuring consciousness?

If the 'what it's like' can be described, it could be added to the axioms, and ITT survives. — frank

- Yes, but then measurement fails.

A theory of consciousness needs a theory of emotion, that describes the role of emotion in self organization. Not just say emotion is an aspect of the system. Nature does not do things whimsically, and for good looks. If emotions exist, they have a function, imo.

Tononi proceeds on the basis that a brain state is equal to its integrated information,
— Pop

I don't think you're understandung the theory. — frank

In that statement I was recalling a lecture of his where he was explaining different brain states in terms of his cause and effect repertoire. Stricktly speaking IIT would say system, but in his lectures the system he focuses on is the human brain.

I think Tononi would say PHI is not equal to consciousness, but is a valid measure of consciousness.

It's kind of obvious. The Hard problem straddles philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. It's a call for a theory of consciousness that addresses the subjective character of consciousness.

That's exactly what IIT is attempting to do. It starts with the assumption that consciousness is a brain based system. The parameters of this system are assumed to be constrained by the the nature of subjective experience. — frank

The hard problem of consciousness is that every moment of consciousness has its feeling, that is either painful or pleasurable, thus consciousness has a "what it feels like" quality. A true theory of consciousness will explain why this is. IIT avoids this question like the plague. As obviously, if it were to tackle it, no quantification could take place.

It is not possible for us to be indifferent about a moment of consciousness, If we were indifferent we would be like philosophical zombies, thus we would have no reason / impetus to go on living.

That every moment of consciousness has its feeling, and that this feeling is the pertinent principle of consciousness should be an IIT axiom, but it is swept under the carpet as the qualia of cognition, and not explained further.

Tononi proceeds on the basis that a brain state is equal to its integrated information, and then sets off to quantify this information in various ways ( and loses me in the process ). This approach may be valid in principle, but given the deficiencies of the axioms, I'm reluctant to spend time trying to understand it. Perhaps you can shine some light on this aspect of the theory.

Maybe the conscious subject is that system that integrates information. — bert1

Yes, the system that integrates the information possesses consciousness, in my view. But then everything is a system, and all systems do this, so we are really talking about degrees of consciousness.

I like the idea of integrated information as representing consciousness. I think it will stick, but I think what Tononi does not acknowledge is that a lot of that information is emotional, and we don't know what emotions are, so how can we measure them? And if we are not measuring emotions, how are we measuring consciousness?

What do you mean "blocks the hard problem?". It attempts to answer it. — frank

How?

The felt quality of consciousness is dealt as a secondary consideration that is simply explained by qualia being equal to consciousness,
— Pop

Isn't it? — frank

No. Saying qualia is equal to consciousness is a clever way of avoiding explaining the mechanism of consciousness. I think it was mentioned earlier how moments of consciousness can last 1 to 400ms. This means consciousness is a process of variable duration, a mechanism. It includes cognition, emotion, and final synthesis. Once these are integrated we have our moment of consciousness. A theory of consciousness would explain all this in the context of the theory. IIT does not.

So we need a unique theory of consciousness for every incidence of it? — frank

What we need is a first person theory that describes the mechanism and why of consciousness, put in broad phenomenological terms such that each person reading it can accept or dismiss it on the basis of their own introspection.
Such an approach has traditionally been against the rules, and unscientific. But given the inroads that IIT has made, at least in part, on the basis of phenomenology, such a theory may now be more acceptable. :up:

It’s a human trait to think that we all experience life the same, clearly I don’t. I know there should be another like me, I feel it in the worlds flow, but we are to far in between and distance spiritually speaking is not measurable. — Kiingarian

There are lots of people like you. From a quick glance of Wikipedia many people who claim aphantasia have led happy and successful lives. About 3% of the world population are in your shoes according to Apantasia.com. Perhaps check it out, and get in touch with others like yourself?

So now we're describing experience itself, the graphic is the view out of one of your eyeballs), and attempting to hypothesize about correlates of that in the neuronal realm. — frank

IIT is a computational theory of consciousness that blocks out the hard problem. Its quite a strange approach, that initially starts confidently in phenomenology. It derives all its axioms in phenomenology, but then that's the last we hear of phenomenology. Instead the theory focuses on a calculation of consciousness through a cause effect repertoire ( which unfortunately is beyond my ability to properly scrutinize).

I see many problems with it, but the main one being that the felt quality of experience is left out of the axioms. The felt quality of consciousness is dealt as a secondary consideration that is simply explained by qualia being equal to consciousness, as if its an irrelevant consideration. But many phenomenologists see consciousness as being composed of two poles - cognition, and experiential reaction. Tononi blocks out experiential reaction, so one wonders what exactly is he calculating as consciousness, since half the information is being ignored?

Its not really a theory of consciousness, in my view, since the hard problem is being ignored, and in being ignored only half of consciousness is being calculated. It seems more of a proposal of a way to calculate cognition. So on the basis of this I'm not going to analyze it further.

What I like about IIT is that it crystalizes the idea that consciousness is integrated information, and that it acknowledges the validity of phenomenology ( normally dismissed offhand as unscientific by physicalists / computationalists ).

Of course the hard problem would be blocked out, as a felt quality can not be conceptualized ( being felt slightly differently in every end user ), so can never be calculated in any universal sense. So I don't have much hope for this approach as a path toward a theory of consciousness.

IIT says a conscious system has a certain amount of internal causation. — frank

This is well expressed. But I wonder, can you see how perception (extra information) has to integrate with already established information to form understanding?

We are conscious of very little of what our brain is actually doing, and it's doing a lot of information processing moment by moment. Why does information integration viz-a-viz digestion not result in conscious experience? — RogueAI

Why do you think it doesn't? I know somebody who has a very uncomfortable, often painful, time digesting and it ruins their day often. The totality of bodily feeling always exists in the background contributing to experience, but we normally are only aware of it when it is panful.

Well, I don't totally understand IIT at this point. That's why I started this thread, in hopes of figuring out how it comes together. — frank

I wasn't specifically referring to IIT, though it is also a relevant question for it. Imo, the single most pertinent question regarding all this is what causes the information to integrate, as that will be consciousness, and as far as I can unravel it, the information integrates on its own, as only it can know how it fits together. That the information is self organizing would have far reaching consequences for philosophy and understanding in general.

However I sense you would rather focus on IIT, so I will leave you to it.

but only the integrated information can create this moment of consciousness.
— Pop

I'm not sure what that means. — frank

As far as I can see, there is a continuum of integrated information, integrating more and more information on to itself. The brain provides the substrate and it facilitates the translation of sense data to information, but it cannot anticipate any instance of integrated information ( consciousness ). The information has to create this by itself, by integrating on its own. The senses and brain orient the person in place, through vision. sound, etc, but the significance of that orientation to the person is not something biology can anticipate. It would suggest the information self organizes. Like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle integrating on their own.

We normally say information integrates subconsciously, but another explanation might be that it is self organizing, as per systems theory.

Evolutionary biology might be the answer. Why would we need to answer that definitively at this point? — frank

This the pertinent point. Evolutionary biology ( brain ) facilitates the information gathering and translating, but only the integrated information can create this moment of consciousness. Nothing other than the information in an integrated state can create this moment of consciousness. Nothing other then information knows how the information can be integrated. It is self organizing - Information integrating information into a synthesis of consciousness that is a state of integrated information.

So we have distinct and exhaustive cause-effect repertoires. — frank

We may have cause effect repertoires. I wouldn't say they are exhaustive, as a moment of consciousness is a final synthesis of cause effect repertoires. What synthesizes it?

Put simply, If consciousness is the state of integrated information, what is the higher function integrating it?

To all.

There lies the dilemma, what integrates the information?

If you hover your cursor next to the time indicator a little arrow will appear, click it to direct your comments. Members will be alerted by email. Next to the arrow are three dots click them to edit your posts.

Thus, the percept and the real thing were completely separable. The latter would exist without the former, but the former would not exist without the latter. None of this makes a great deal of sense to me, and I am not alone in this — Neri

Today we can imagine an energetic reality ( E=mc2, and Rutherford's experiments ). When we imagine such a reality we mustn't forget that everything including us is made of an energetic stuff. We receive information of this stuff via energetic frequencies and vibrations that we call sight and sound. So it would seem we are well oriented in an energetic reality in that an energetic person receives energetic signals from an energetic external world. It would seem to be a one to one connection, a like with like entanglement. So a real relationship.

Where the dissonance occurs is in the translation of energetic frequency and vibration to anthropocentric symbols of sight and sound, etc. What seems to occur is that frequencies are recognized and symbolized, say to a color, or a sound, pattern recognition style. Suppose each pattern/ frequency has its own symbol, and suppose each symbol has its own neuron, once all the neurons are related then a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.

Now if we shut our eyes and ears so no more frequency and vibration is sensed, the symbols still remain in our neurons and continue to be variously related without any external input. This relationship we understand as mind. Of course it contains symbols of all sorts of things, not just frequencies of light (sight ), and vibrations ( sound ), but all sorts of biologically created, and culturally derived symbols / concepts.

But, if we accept that matter is energetic, is this absolute reality? No, because we do not know what the ingredients that make up energy are. And when we find that out, we wont know what the ingredients that make up the ingredients are, and so on an on. So If this is what Kant was saying then he is correct , we cannot get in touch with reality absolutely. The best we can do is symbolize it meaningfully at any level, and that is what we have done. :smile: Hope this helps.

Well argued and welcome to the forum. :up:

↪Pop
It was just an idea, that i had. Thinking about water that can store "information", why not have another substance that can do the same thing ? — Adughep

We currently have the internet, which has led to a quantum shift in my understanding, but you are probably thinking about something like Neuralink?

Water memory would fit beautifully, but there is so little supporting research. :rage: And then a Helix copies its double! So its still a physical memory at the cellular level.