Do you have an argument or are you just

tokinoutmi-arse — Tres Bien

it all has that same "I Want to Believe" vibe, that muddying the waters looking for a back door to reality vibe. Anything but the "looking reality square in the eye and doing what's right because it's true" vibe! — counterpunch

Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, and major funding. His thesis is consciousness is fundamental - it is contained in everything. Koch, Tononi, and many others are also of the same opinion. Cellular consciousness is where this will be resolved. Lipton thinks the brain of the cell is in the cellular membrane, Roger Penrose and co, think it is in the microtubules. Its a different way of understanding and it works better then the old assumption. It is a monist understanding. As I said before, it requires personal research. Please do the research, and come back and tell me why motor proteins are not making decisions, and then we will have something to talk about.

Could it be that information and energy are not actually channeled but rather are instantly and always present everywhere at once, briefly glowing intensely in particular spots which we perceive as thought? — Tres Bien

That is putting it nicely! I like it. I think it would be channeled, and also we would move into, and through it - briefly lighting it up in a self interested way, or briefly glowing intensely as you say.

It's an algorithmic process — counterpunch

An algorithmic process that has the effect you have described is a form of mind, in my understanding. There is no conscious entity behind it, but it is a form of logic that we find ourselves in and arise out of.
This being the mind of the situation we find ourselves in - figuratively, not literally.

How does that information compare to the energies that stimulated the senses? — Tres Bien

Are you asking is the information energy? It is enformation as @Gnomon has conceived it.

And finally, how does the brain's interpretation of the information that was input by the senses compare to the energies that stimulated the senses? — Tres Bien

We cannot separate energy and information. They always exist together and embedded in matter, travelling in waves or particles ( as per double slit experiment ). The brain integrates enformation. The information and energy is channeled through the brain structure in such a way that it becomes intelligible to us. Mapping brain function is something I leave to neurobiologists. But I like Roger Penrose and co's proposal that the energies that stimulate senses ultimately end up as quantum permutations in cellular microtubules, thus causing understanding, If that is what you are asking.

But we cannot have primitive pre-scientific religious misconceptions of reality as a basis to apply high tech technologies. — counterpunch

:up:

At the physiological level, and at the behavioural level - the organism is crafted in relation to a causal reality by the function or die algorithm of evolution — counterpunch

Yes , I agree, evolution is a form of consciousness itself - causing other forms of emergent consciousness in its path.

I just ate a beef sandwich and it didn't run away! — counterpunch

I hope the Prion in the beef can not read. :lol: They can survive cooking and they cause mad cow disease. A fuller explanation of prions is available in the molecular awareness thread.

As I said before, I was once of the same opinion as you, and through researching the topic as widely as possible, I have changed my mind. It is not something one can decide upon on the basis of one or two opinions, It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism.

In organic systems, it is determinism with a slight element of randomness. This is the take home from observation of evolving systems such as Covid19. The domino must fall, but can fall with a slight twist to the left or right, thus changing the trajectory slightly.

So determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergence in its path.

First I've heard of it, and we're 21 years into the new millenium! — counterpunch

Perhaps you should look harder. There is a plethora of information in the fields of cellular biology, microbiology, plant neurobiology, and quantum biology. Or at least provide a proof of your assertion that molecules such as cellular proteins have no conscious - not just an opinion based in ancient assumption. What proof do you have that cellular proteins are not conscious? An absence of proof to the contrary, dose not cut it anymore, as there now is actually quite a lot proof to the contrary.

. It's the uniquely human perspective of the world, that homo sapiens have in common. — Gnomon

This is a very vague magically anthropocentric notion , in my view.

My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon

Biblical?

But the last time I had a discussion with a rock, it had nothing interesting to say. That was a one-way conversation between Rocky & me. :razz: — Gnomon

Its up to the higher consciousness to speak to the lower one in terms it understands. Give the rock a kick next time and see what it says. I'm sure it will acknowledge a response. :razz:

Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin: — Gnomon

All those elements are present in the form of the system disturbed - in the form of the rock.

You sound disappointed. — Gnomon

The disappointment is more in that the understanding we form, is something we have come to rely on and depend on, and so can not be moved very quickly. It takes a lot of time - years . Trying to convince you of a better alternative understanding is like banging my head against a brick wall, and the same for you in trying to convince me. So this reality is a bit disappointing. :angry:

And if you said, I think molecules are conscious - I'd be fitting you for a long sleeved jacket with buckles up the back! — counterpunch

There was a time when I thought the same as you do. But in researching the topic I have moved on:


By strict definition, a receptor-effector complex represents a fundamental unit of perception. Protein perception units provide the foundation of biological consciousness. Perceptions “control” cell behavior, though in truth, a cell is actually “controlled” by beliefs, since perceptions may not necessarily be accurate. - Bruce H. Lipton, PhD ( 2012)

yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking — Gnomon

That all things are conscious because they arise from the same process - interrelational evolution, is the most important consideration to me. Human consciousness is not something special or set apart from that process. Of course human consciousness is the most evolved and complex expression of that process. Closing the door on all-things-are-conscious, without proof, on the basis of ancient assumptions seems like magical thinking to me.

You have a logical problem with your conception - you cannot define human consciousness. You cannot draw a line in the sand separating it from other forms of consciousness. It contains no distinctive attributes. Self awareness is inherent in the process of self organization, the process is innately self aware - through a process that creates and maintains a self as something distinct from non self. It seems, what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness

Most of your other constructions I can generally agree with. I can say that even Matera, Varela, and Capra, the broad originators of this systemic, and embodied conception that I am continuing, would agree with your dualistic conception of consciousness. I am keen to press beyond it as I think it is precisely at the point where one thinks that one's consciousness is not set apart, that one can then relate to all the other consciousness in the universe as a being in the universe. At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. Its a good feeling. It leads to universal relatedness. A conception like this embedded into the psyche of the world population is what is missing from the destructive and unsustainable prevailing dogma, so I'm doing what little I can to change this.

However, to each his own, as it must be. :smile:

This latter is a return to the notion that the future goal & purpose was set by the creator or designer or programmer. Thus, the “appearance” of design is an inference from a mechanical system that works as-if it was created for some practical reason, just as a clock serves a purpose that is not found in the mechanism — Gnomon

I thought you might see it this way. :smile: But thanks for all the background, very very interesting.

Consequently, only since the emergence of organisms with language have we been able to share the feelings of others rationally, as opposed to the vague non-verbal sensations of emotional Empathy. :love: — Gnomon

:up: Communication is verbal and non verbal. We still use the non verbal form of communication that creates empathy. This is the necessary aspect of consciousness ( the aspect a P.Zombie cannot have ).
The verbal aspect is not strictly necessary. It improves consciousness, but dose not create it - it is an optional element.

What do you suppose is "outside the system", constantly "interacting" with components of the system to cause energy exchanges to evolve into self-awareness? — Gnomon

This is where self organization from the perspective of complexity theory has been really helpful to my understanding. Its made me realize that there is a singular activity that everything is involved in and arises out of - interrelational evolution I like to call it. Everything evolves out of an interaction with its environment. The interaction places evolutionary pressure on the system, and its environment. It is what we are presently ( in this discussion ) involved in, and it is what a rock is also involved in.

From an information perspective: internally the system is articulated and integrated by information, like a hurricane, and its outer edges are rubbing against external information. It must evolve in this setting, so its constraints and possibilities are entirely dictated by this setting. It is formed entirely from externalities and entirely enmeshed with its externalities. The internal and external are two sides of the one coin. So what possibilities arise, arise due to this interrelation. From this perspective it can be seen how awareness was always part of the process. Information exchange, and cognition of information exchange is built into the process. As it evolved it became ever more refined, as a function of the refining effect of evolution, eventually it evolved into what we commonly call consciousness. There were however elements of it at every level, and as we have mentioned previously, it is based in externalities, in a "pocket of order" causing it. Hence panpsychism, in my view.


** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state".
I have decided to accept this assertion as fact. From here it seems possible to build a logical bridge from the "pocket of order" to human consciousness, and then via this bridge, attribute emotions back to the universe. There are still substantial gaps, but who knows what else will be discovered / understood. Its an interesting journey in any case. :smile:

So, in the absence of verbal evidence, or mind-reading, they are presumed to be robotic (or zombies). — Gnomon

This is not a logical conclusion from your argument. The logical conclusion should be a neutral stance from the logic of your argument. Then when provided with evidence that they posses chemicals associated with emotions, and when you observe them cognizing and dealing with problems, the leaning should be towards an acceptance that they are more likely to have emotion and consciousness then not.

White blood cell and bacteria, playing cat and mouse in a petri dish. 1.5min long

But, the "ordering" and "organization" of system is the Effect of a Cause.outside the sub-system (holon) that is changed. It doesn't just happen spontaneously. — Gnomon

:up: No it doesn't occur spontaneously. But neither dose human consciousness. As I see it we are still locked into this singular way of being as an evolving biological system. We have not disconnected from those turtles causing us, we still depend on those turtles. This leads to an impression of a multilayered being in a pocket of order, or a being in the universe.

But logically, since Consciousness has emerged from pre-conscious evolution processes, the Enformer must have possessed the Potential for consciousness. — Gnomon

Or perhaps what is outside the system is a cause of consciousness. The system interacting with what is outside of itself causes consciousness. This is true for integrated information causing our consciousness, but what I'm referring to is that evolution is a form of mind. It causes biological systems to improve their function, there is no choice in the matter, a system must evolve and natural selection will cull the non viable variants, thus the thrust is towards improvement of function. Integrated information will form a concept, and in time this will prove to be correct or not, thus being culled similar to natural selection, thus an improvement of function results. In this way consciousness is still locked into the same process that initially caused it. It will never break free of this process, as interrelation evolution is the only game in town! It is true for atoms as it is for human consciousness, and all the layers of the system in between.

However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd: — Gnomon

Proof of definition please.

Some people project their empirical assumptions in exactly the same way. :cool:

On the balance of the evidence: there is 0 evidence that all life does not possesses emotions.
There is quite a lot of evidence that it dose: The chemicals associated with emotion regulation are also found in microbial and plant life: Neurotransmitters acetylcholine and biogenic amines dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine are present not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms. - V.V. Roshchina (2001)



If you follow the logic, which side of the fence is the logical side??

Are you saying that atoms have emotions, and communicate feelings? Perhaps, in a metaphorical sense. But the fine distinction I make is between Energy Effect, and Conscious Affect. Effect is a physical (material) change due to energy input. But Affect is the meta-physical (mental) result of a meaningful input of information. It's the same difference between Motion and Emotion. :chin: — Gnomon

We don't know what emotions are. We have agreed we cannot conceptualize them. We cannot feel each others emotions. If we don't know what something is, how can we say something does not have it? Why would information not contain emotion? An empirical assumption is not a good enough answer.

I'm not saying that I know. Of course I don't.

I agree, but the metaphorical "awareness" of an atom or ant is not fully-developed. In my graph of cosmic progression, full Consciousness was attained only after Life emerged only a short time ago, on the cosmic scale. Information (EnFormAction) is the causal force of Evolution, but it only causes consciousness after a long period of complexification and integration, as in IIT. :smile: — Gnomon

None of that emergent consciousness is possible without the ordered patterns of consciousness below. It is not turtles all the way down, it is patterns of order creating emergent properties, which when synergized are self ordering - they are equally an evolving process of self organization, where human consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. Its just that their externalities ( the things they are conscious of ) are different. Hence their consciousness is an integration of those externalities, in the same pattern as ours is, in the sense that we integrate the information surrounding us.

Hence, the worldview of Panpsychism that is fashionable today among New Agers, and even some scientists, is based on an outdated understanding of causation. — Gnomon

The synergy of atoms creates molecules. The synergy of molecules creates amino acids. The synergy of amino acids is where animate matter emerges. It is the pattern and folding of amino acids that create protein machines that are able to carry out independent cellular functions. For some idea of this, there is the awareness in molecules thread. There are at least 20,000 proteins available for production. To simulate the protein folding our best AI, Deep Mind Alpha Fold can only achieve a 90% success rate, this is for the simplest 150 amino acid chain. The most complicated proteins are 3000 amino acids long!!! There is a 10^150 odd possible combinations. Something in the cell ( its consciousness ) is on top of this. It is within the cells power to create from inanimate matter ( amino acids ), animate matter ( cellular proteins ), of remarkable complexity. It chooses which ones to create and when.

Sorry but Panpsychism is based in observations like these, not as you have assumed it above.

This picky distinction is necessary for the logic of my thesis to make sense. :nerd: — Gnomon

Yes, I think I understand, we have to self organize, and so we are not always entirely free to follow the logic. I don't expect anybody to really, but as I've stated earlier its something to keep in mind for future research.

Can God do anything?

Yes, god can tie off loose ends, and plug in gaps in theories! God is truly omnipotent in this regard. :smile:

It costed me 5 years of master degree studies and 2 master degrees... but if you pay me well I can teach you :lol: :rofl: :lol: — Raul

What a waste of time and money, given the result. I'll be waiting on 0 information from you. :rofl: :rofl:

They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense. — Gnomon

In my understanding, this is the beginning of consciousness - the self ordering at the bottom level, leads to ordering in levels above. It is incredibly subtle, but without this ordering at the bottom, thoughts could not form. Ontologically we are grounded in the "pocket of order". We are a being in the universe.

Awareness in the human sense is being able to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings.
This, I suspect, is a function of communication. I suspect that before we could communicate we could have thoughts and feelings, but it is only since the collective consciousness that we could pool information into a collective bin that everybody can draw from, that a new consciousness arose, that allowed us to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings. Its the synergy of many minds that creates a collective consciousness, and this is the emergent consciousness that you are describing as human consciousness. What I'm getting at is that there is an evolving process at play always

So, I think PanPsychism is based on a Spiritual worldview — Gnomon

No there is nothing spiritual about my understanding. It is entirely logical. Rigorously logical.

Information per se is the potential for Change, and for Meaning. But, Energy is the actual cause of change. — Gnomon

But the proper form is Enformation, and we don't know what this bundle contains. We know consciousness consists of information + emotion. We know a philosophical zombie is inert with only energy and information ( enformation ). It needs emotion for consciousness. Why should this not work for all life?
The logic is that it should! That it is not so is an ancient religious assumption not based on any scientific proof. The proof that exists, in microbiology, cellular biology, plant neurobiology, quantum biology, is that these things are thinking (cognizing).

Its not something one can accept on the face of it. It requires a personal journey of research and discovery. It takes a long time to accept, so I don't expect any sudden change of heart on your part. But its something to think about in future research.

Lets not respond to trolls.

It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information. — Raul

Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example. — Pop

I'm still waiting. Given you understand information so well, it should not be a problem to provide an instance of 0 information. :rofl: :rofl:

Information is thefundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding. — Pop

You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink: — Raul

Note the highlighted "fundamental" in my answer. Most people would understand that information, being fundamental, is part of everything, and so cannot be defined in terms excluding itself.

@Gnomon and I are discussing the metaphysics of information. It requires a deeper insight then can be gained from a reading of wikipedia. Kindly avail yourself of such insight before posting more ignorant comments.

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:[/quote]

A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information.

Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example.


Why do people who do not know very much, think they know it all. Is it because they do not know enough to know any better? :chin:

Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl:

Reading through this paragraph I have the impression you don't understand what information is. Do you have a definition of information? I'm curious because is clearly different from the one we find in wikipedia, so I'm curious. What is information for you and what is not information for you? — Raul

Information is the fundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding.

Everything in the world is a form of Information. — Gnomon

Yes, that's how I see it. Information is inseparable from energy and matter. Metaphysics, for me, is the underlying logic of how things work - the logical causal mechanics. Information connects things by informing them, in a two way interrelation process. The formation of things is an expression of this information. If we could strip away the energy and matter from information, the world would be a field of interrelated, intertwined information. But significantly in a "pocket of order", the information would be integrated. All the information, and subsequently energy and matter would be in the right place ( stable state ) relationally. It would be integrated information! :nerd: Impressions like these lead me to a panpsychic understanding. I think this would be roughly consistent with how Koch, and Tononi would also see it.

Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, — Gnomon

The information at every stage of the process still exists in information + energy = matter form. To go from one mind to another it has to propagate across physical fields. So at this metaphysical level, there doesn't seem to be much difference between human information exchange and object information exchange. The main difference, it seems, is that we are a fast evolving system ( in absolute terms, we evolve from thought to thought), whilst objects are very slow evolving systems ( from our timeframe, possessing only one thought - one instance of integrated information). If we could slow down our evolution ( thought to thought ), to one thought an hour, then we might be on par to say a tree, at one thought a year perhaps a rock. :smile: This is not to say that human consciousness is any less then what we think it is, its more to say that the consciousness that exists all around us is worthy of more respect then it currently receives.

We all put it together differently. What we put together is a function of biology, experience, and point in space ( relativity ). It facilitates our self organization. It is, as you say, our world view, or an expression of our consciousness. Nobody's is perfect, and everybody's is their best current understanding. To put this down in stated form is an achievement I think. I think you have done well! In many respects you are better informed then I am (thanks for the pocket of order), and its been good to exchange notes. That philosophers will agree is a pipedream, that we have agreed on so many things is added affirmation that in those respects we are correct. :up:

Thanks for the self organization links. Neil Theise is also a good introductory source.

It does not mean I will now defer to your every comment, Ha,ha. :smile:

For sure. I just really, really liked the way he puts it. Really gave me the sense of being "the product of mind and matter", versus purely "mind" as I used to conceive myself. Possibly "Material Mind?" I like how some yogic systems have seven "subtle bodies" that gradually intermediate between matter and mind. — Pantagruel

In my understanding enlightenment occurs as a result of a shift in paradigm, and effectively you are stating you have undergone a shift in paradigm. :up:

Spontaneous self-organization as spontaneous decrease of entropy ? I'm not sure "self-organization" is an exhaustive enough word. I like Damasio's argument much more that says the purpose of emotions is to maintain homeostasis, survival. — Raul

Spontaneous would not be logical. Initially they are caused. The fundamental cause would be the ordered state of the universe. They could not occur in disordered pockets.

Damasio's argument is not at odds with my understanding, my preferred wording is "far from equilibrium", rather then homeostasis. Far from equilibrium implies homeostasis, but also far in excess of homeostasis.
Organisms live at far-from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. They import exergy, export entropy and maintain constancy of their vital internal physiological constituents via homeostasis.

Well, if we want to get really technical, there is no such thing as the third person perspective. We're all somewhat independent, having our own personal perspectives. Therefore we all have a first person perspective and that's all — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

You're almost there but I think Damasio is more successful describing emotions and feelings (they re not the same thing). — Raul

They may originate as feelings of hunger or thirst, or as emotions due to cognitive process, but they resolve to feelings that are either painful or pleasant, that provide the felt sensation that becomes a causal force. - the question is why should that happen? and I think the answer is that it facilitates self organization.** Why? - because living systems can do nothing other then self organize. Everything they do is within the framework of self organization, punctuated by a feeling of "what it feels like" in the present moment.

Therefore, the universe is generally chaotic, but contains a seed of EnFormAction, which is indeed biased toward order. :smile: — Gnomon

:up: That fits with my view of Determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergent properties into its progress, met by natural selection culling unviable variants, thus causing better ordered states. This big picture seems to be a form of self organization. The big picture seems to be a teleological one, creating layers of smaller pictures subsuming the same form, as it is the only game in town! So its only possible to progress towards order. Human consciousness sits on top of this pile, but is not separate to it. Indeed it is entirely a teleological / self ordering mechanism, whose purpose is to self organize the entire system in relation to external elements / information. There is no possibility to step outside of this function in ordinary states of consciousness, because the very nature of a thought is a self organizing mechanism.

So the top down causation seems to be a big bucket where self order is the only possibility, with gradual layers of smaller buckets subsuming the same form all the way down to Planck length. Though it might be easier to understand as a bottom up causation.

Energy, that physicists take for granted, is also an invisible, intangible, immaterial causal force. And it's obvious that one of its many forms is the visceral motivations that we call Emotions. :joke: — Gnomon

YES! :up: It is obvious to me also, unfortunately not so for everybody. I think this is our ontological base - experience, that is a feeling, that is painful or pleasurable, that creates the "what it feels like" to be in the present moment. This is the thing that we have always trusted, and must trust, as it is the basis of our self organization, which is the basis of our personal reality, and everything that matters to us. And it seems it is a force emanating from a universe biased toward order.
At certain times of the universe there are certain forces at play, and this is what we are fundamentally grounded in - at the moment, in local time, it is the force toward order, which we arise out of, which we feel as emotions, that grounds us in the universe.

EnFormAction : I can see your mind ticking as it grapples with the logic of it all. I can certainly relate to that. :smile:
In consciousness, it is emotion that gives rise to the energy that enables action. The emotion is itself information, so if Enformation also contains emotion, then I can agree with it. EnFormAction is the result.
The mechanism described would be the integrative pole of consciousness, whilst perception would be the disintegrative pole (the disordering of the state).

Cartesianism excludes the "force of emotion" from all things non mind. So there is no answer to the hard problem from that paradigm. To shift the paradigm, and answer the hard problem, emotion has to become a force, or the universe has to become emotional. The effect is the same. Its a big job! :lol:

Thanks for the "pocket of order". I agree, to say it is a universe biased toward order is overreach. It needs rephrasing.

I believe that these are just the tip of the iceberg, and the world of the unexperienced is actually much more extensive than what is experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Anything faster or slower than that, we cannot experience, but we understand from memory, logic, and reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover

From a systems perspective: As a self organizing system we are attuned to all those elements that we as a consciousness are not aware of. They have causal power, its just that we are not aware of it.

If this is your assumption about what is valid, then all instances of logic being applied toward understanding things which are not actually experienced would be invalid. Of course that's incorrect, because if the only valid knowledge was things which are directly experienced, first person, then nothing obtained from the application of logic would be valid. So there would be no point in using logic because it would be all invalid for going outside experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Logic is experienced in the first person. Every thought is an experience. So logic prevails, but yes, it is a conundrum isn't it? The third person perspective cannot include the first person experiential element, and is different in time and space, so it is logically dissonant, it seems. I'm not sure what to think really. It is a big issue, and one I currently cannot answer.

I don't really want to debate the issue, I just wanted to compare notes. If you find an answer to this first person vs third person conundrum please let me know.

From a systems perspective, what we are is something like a whirlpool that has formed in a fast flowing river . To what extent can it be said that the whirlpool is alone?

But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans?A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand? — Outlander

Time is an important element. Far from equilibrium states store energy for a future time.So they are cognizant of time from the word GO! The self organizing system is entirely attuned to its environment, and evolves within the environments constraints and possibilities, in a relational fashion, through its interaction with it.
The system is entirely determined / caused, with a slight randomness attached to each causal transaction, such that emergent properties arise from the randomness acting upon a multiplicity of causal factors. Eventually the system evolves in this way already aware and interacting with its environment, "as this is the only way that it has to develop", into humanity.

Complexity Theory applies to isolated chaotic systems, which have a limited lifespan. But the Cosmos seems to be gradually organizing itself (self-organization) despite the pull (bias) of Entropy back into a chaotic state — Gnomon

There are quite a few objectors to the heat death hypothesis:


From Wikipedia:

"
Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[27][28] More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[29] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[30] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[31] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[32] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[33] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[34]

A 2010 analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[35] Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[36] This point of view is also supported by the fact of a recent experimental discovery of a stable non-equilibrium steady state in a relatively simple closed system. It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.[37][38]"

A think it is fair enough to say that the universe is biased towars order. It is true at least for the local observed universe, in local time. This is the relevent consideration. Things may have been different in the past, and may be different in the future, but currently and locally there is a bias towards order.

Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. — Gnomon

- I like this very much.

We cannot conceptualize emotions we can only feel them. :100:
We cannot conceptualize energy, we can only feel it. 80% - any thoughts?
Therefore emotion is a form of energy / enformation ?? - a force?

Thanks for your very thorough analysis. I was originally taken aback by your original construction as I couldn't find logical fault with it, but it differs with my own instinctive understanding, which is more in line with @Thinking. In pondering it, it dawned on me that this is an interesting situation in that the first and third person perspectives change the reality of the situation. I couldn't understand how that could be, but then I realized Einstein's time is relative. And so there is a big difference in the first and third person perspectives.

Whilst the third person perspective is an invaluable conceptual tool, I tend to question to what extent is it real given nobody can ever experience that perspective? The experienced perspective is the first person perspective, and concerning time is quite a different beast. At the extreme end, I as the first person can be standing still in time at light speed, whilst the third person sees me travelling in time :chin: This example is extreme, but the relationship is similar at lower then light speeds, and still exists at walking speed vs standing.

Who's point of view is valid? Is it valid to apply a third person perspective to a first person perspective of time? I don't think so. That would be saying they are in my time and space, which they are not - they have their own time and space. It would seem that only the first person perspective is a valid view in this case. Thus Einstein's conclusion - relativity. Or time and space are relative to the observer.

From the first person perspective experience occurs in the present moment, where the future is a probabilistic abyss. There is no absolute certainty that it will occur. It has been our experience in the past that it will continue to occur, but there is a non zero probability that it wont ( particularly in covid times ). So that there is a future is an assumption, in my view.

Your causation is one of determinism plus free will ( compatibilism ). I take my que from systems such as covid19 and see causation as determinism plus a slight element of randomness, such that there will be a main causal thrust and then some variation to it, such that when the multiplicity of causal elements are combined the picture becomes quite random indeed. This randomness acting upon the multiplicity of causal elements causes emergent properties to come into the future. This makes it probabilistic and uncertain.

Anyway, good to compare notes.

The Law of Thermodynamics "assumes", as an axiom, that our universe is a closed system, — Gnomon

But, scientists still admit that the world is open-ended at both ends : a> in the Big Bang, inputs of laws & energy ; b> at the Final Whisper, the heat death of the whole system. — Gnomon

What about the black holes? What is dark matter and energy? How would things change if we understood the other 85%??

Cosmic Progression Path — Gnomon

I like it. It seems the rate of change is ever increasing. But in complexity theory the curve progresses and then suddenly collapses, like the Bronze Age , Roman empire, etc.

The currently accepted theory of matter says that invisible formless fields, not particles, are fundamental. The emergent particles are imagined as Virtual Particles that exist only in statistical Potential until some mysterious perturbation goads them into physical Actual existence. — Gnomon

Yes that is true, but like "the beginning" one needs to find firm footing. At least atoms are not in dispute / theoretical. Unlike string theory, which seems headed for the can.