Because expressing an opinion about mysticism was the subject of the thread. — Pantagruel

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing.

Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case). — Pantagruel

Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical.

I disagree. What I’m doing in sharing my idea is inviting others to disagree, so that I can refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view. I don’t think my particular view is objective in itself, but I believe it is potentially more accurate in relation to objectivity. But I don’t think I can really have an objective view - so, no, I don’t intend to claim one by consensus. I’m aiming more for (Hegelian) synthesis. I’m thinking that, between us, there is possibly a more objective view. — Possibility

If you are looking for others to disagree with your idea so that you can "refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view.", then why are you disagreeing with me? In disagreeing with me, you are saying that my subjective truth isn't true. So what determines if some subjective truth is true? Is your disagreement enough to determine that my subjective truth isn't true? In your disagreeing, am I now suppose to believe that my subjective truth is false?

Anything I say about truth, reality, meaning, information, etc can only be an expression of my subjective view. — Possibility

This is great example of an objective view of a subjective view. Is what you just said subjectively true, or objectively true? What if we dispense with "objective" and "subjective" because they are really just synonyms for "true" and "false". Is your above claim true or false?

Mysticism, to my knowledge, is always about the ineffable, no? If mystical knowledge could be put into words then, that would be a contradiction - amounting to saying I can express the inexpressible. — TheMadFool

Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible?

I wish you'd not judge people like me so harshly. We don't have delusions, especially of the grandiose kind. We simply find linear thinking difficult. Thus we look for alternatives. Too, it's possible that some knowledge can't be gained by the mere application of logic to certain sets of assumptions. — TheMadFool

I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. Just go back and read the above. It is incoherent - contradictory - to claim that mysticism is inexpressible while at the same time trying to express it. If that is truth to you, then we might as well part ways.

It's not that you find linear thinking difficult. You just don't like the answers it gives. You want to feel special - important - and logic doesn't give you that. Your feelings are in conflict with the conclusions of logical, reasonable thinking.

"The information in your brain", though... are we back to internal images, data, words, symbols? I'm not keen to agree to any assertions about what such alleged internal entities include and refer to: even though I can see how natural these assertions will seem to those who are comfortable with modelling the brain as a pre-neural-network symbolic computer. — bongo fury

I find it interesting that you think that information only comes in the form of images, data, words, and symbols. What about neural firings? Is that information in the brain? If so, then information about what? Can neural firings be about the location of an apple relative to your body? How?

Obviously my skills in navigating myself require somehow being sensitive to what in fact are specific locations etc. I don't see that a theory of internal representations is required to explain the sensitivity. — bongo fury

Is your sensitivity the same as the specific location, or is it about the specific location? It seems like you are confusing your sensitivity (the symbol) with the location (the symbolized). How is the sensitivity different than the specific location? How is it similar or related?

The swallow may fly south with the sun, not necessarily by consulting internal symbolic maps but, more likely, by inheriting and/or learning appropriate responses to all manner of environmental cues. — bongo fury

Sounds like symbolism to me. Cue is just another name for symbol/signal. Is the cue the same thing as the state of the environment, or are they different things? Are you a solipsist?

Do you mean, what do I find when I try to examine and describe my thoughts and perceptions? As I was saying, although I'm as susceptible as anyone to conventional habits of interpretation which do tempt me into assuming ghostly entities inside me, I suspect that a more realistic account of the sense of / illusion of consciousness will probably focus on the effect of thinking in (as in, preparing to select or manipulate) symbols. — bongo fury

But the nerve firings actually happen. Your inner film show doesn't. That's what I'm saying, anyway. — bongo fury

But you said that the illusion of consciousness doesn't happen. Is an illusion something that happens? If it doesn't then what are you talking about when you talk about "habits of interpretation" and "thinking in symbols"?

What is a mirage? How do you explain an illusion of a mirage within the illusion of consciousness using neural firings?

Illusions happen. The image of the illusion isn't dispelled when you interpret the image correctly. Rather than a pool of water, you see bent light. When you understand that you don't see objects like bent sticks in water and brains with neural firings, rather you see light, then the mirage is what you expect to see. The explanation predicts the effect of mirages in the mind. So what explanation do you know that explains the illusion of consciousness in a way that predicts that it will happen?

Well, the view from my window could (in one sense) mean my back garden, or it could mean an image of said garden created at said window. A photo, for example. Do you mean something else? — bongo fury

No, I mean he view from your head. Would you agree that the information in your "brain" includes objects' location relative to your brain, and not your window? Is it informative to know about the location of objects relative to your body or your window?

Pleasant and informative. Good practice at discerning patterns in the images and other objects around me. And for you? — bongo fury

Pleasant and informative could apply to a mind with images. I need an description that couldn't be interpreted to apply minds with images, because you say those things don't happen. What is discerning patterns in the images and other objects around you like?

Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? — TheMadFool

How can you say that you understand it if it can't be worded, unless the problem is that you don't have the vocabulary for wording it. Sometimes new ideas require new words, but words that still embody the idea.

You seem to have a difficult time answering my questions. Come back after you've taken the time to think out your idea in a way that makes sense and can answer my questions.

Don't take what appeals to me or anyone for that matter as bearing any significance other than indicating my (our) failure to use logic in the proper way. People like us are then naturally drawn to what is presented to the public as an alternative - mystical insight. We feel better about ourselves when we see that what we're not good at is claimed not to matter. However, this is all a smoke and mirrors: there is no alternative route to knowledge other than by the application of rigorous rules of thinking - logic.

By the way, are we talking about the same thing? — TheMadFool

I don't know. Is your goal to feel better about yourself, or to obtain knowledge?

Ideas that make one feel better about themselves at the expense of obtaining knowledge are generally referred to as delusions (delusions of grandeur).

What is a view?

What is looking at this screen like for you? — Harry Hindu

You're so sensitive. — Cidat

Is this a truth?

The truth is what we make it. We cannot verify if truth exists or not, what we perceive as truth is just our strong opinion. — Cidat

This is a great example of the misuse of language being used as philosophy.

This is a contradiction. Your first sentence is a description of the nature of truth, then the next sentence says that we can't verify if truth exists, yet your previous sentence just explained what truth is - implying that it exists. You then follow up with another description of truth as being "just our strong opinion". Does truth exist as our strong opinion or not?

Is the nature of truth is that it is a conception only? Is it true that you typed the previous post? If we both agree that you did, how is it that we share conceptions of truth?

That’s up to you. I can tell you what I think and explain why I think that way. Whether you believe it or not is not something I’m going to enforce. Does that freedom bother you? — Possibility

But why would you even conclude that what you think would be useful to me if we weren't similar in some way in the way we think already, or that we live in a shared world where similar causes lead to similar effects - that what you think is objective rather than subjective?

What you are doing in sharing your idea is attempting to get others to agree with you so that you can use that as a evidence to support your idea being true. In doing this, you are trying to change your subjective view to an objective one.

Sure everyone has the freedom to come up with their own imaginings, without any inhibitions, but that just means that dragons and unicorns really exist in a hidden dimension and Elvis Presley's spirit has been reincarnated in Smitty Cooper of Tropical Paradise Trailer Park are all just as likely (or true) as any idea you come up with here in this thread.

In order to analyse truth you have to start somewhere. That starting point is inherently uncertain. — Cidat

Were you certain when you stated that the starting point is uncertain? — Harry Hindu

Your idea that your starting point is unquestionable is, in itself, an assumption. — Cidat

You didn't answer my question. My question was about your idea, not my idea, which I haven't even provided for you yet. I'm simply asking a question about your idea.

I'm asking you what scribble you are using to refer to the form the information about the world relative to your eyes takes. If you don't want to use the scribble, image, then what scribble do you use, and why?

What is a view?

What is looking at this screen like for you?

Just spotted a post by someone commenting on the difficulty of engaging discussions about mysticism. — I like sushi

Just replace every instance of "mysticism" with "god" in your OP and you are explaining the same problem. If the meaning of the word is subjective, what is the point in discussing it?

Is this problem evidence that we do have private languages that we translate into public language for communicating with others in a shared, causal world?

Personally speaking, the promise of knowledge of ultimate reality by means other than the slogging through the tedium of comprehending endless pages of logical argumentation is quite appealing to my nature and perhaps many others. — TheMadFool

This is based on the assumption that knowledge of ultimate reality can be obtained by other means, and that those means would appealing.

You pointed out that many others might find these other means quite appealing, but not everyone. The fact that not everyone finds the same means appealing needs to be explained in a way that doesn't contradict the explanation that many do find the same means appealing. This explanation would be objective in the sense that it would apply to all - the reason why there are many different means, and if there is a correct one. What do you think the means of providing this explanation would be?

In order to analyse truth you have to start somewhere. That starting point is inherently uncertain. — Cidat

It seems to me that your are starting from a place in certainty when asserting that all starting points are inherently uncertain. — Harry Hindu

How do you know what constitutes certainty? — Cidat

You tell me. Were you certain when you stated that the starting point is uncertain?

"Have"? They relate to them, sure. I am keener than you (apparently) to avoid implying that a dreaming brain literally contains them. Especially if they have to be "mental". — bongo fury

You're mis-representing my position. Please quote the post where I said brains contain images. I believe that I said that minds contain images of brains, and that brains are not what is out there, but other minds are what is out there and brains, and their neural firings, are how we model other minds. Mental objects are the mental process of modeling other processes. So, it appears that I am keener (less naive) than your naive realism.

I hoped you wouldn't ask that one :confused:
— bongo fury
Why? Is it a stupid or difficult question?
— Harry Hindu

Haha, difficult. Working on it. :nerd: — bongo fury

Sure. (Although I'd want to gloss "of it" as, e.g., "interpreting it" rather than "copying it" or other notions suggesting the dream was composed of images.) — bongo fury

:grin:
Wait, then why is the question difficult if you're just going to wave your hand again and say that images don't even exist in dreams? What makes the question so difficult unless dreams have images?

Yep. (Although of course many don't, e.g. pictures of unicorns, and abstract expressionist pictures.) — bongo fury

This is very strange. How is it that the unicorn that I draw will look similar to your drawing of a unicorn? Where are we getting our information to draw a unicorn, and what form does that information take?

I asked you what dreams are, but also what is an imagining, or a hallucination even?

Not clear what you consider the brain to have learnt, here... to participate in a language game of pointing actual words and pictures at things (my preference), or to host mental words and pictures that point at things? — bongo fury

What form do words take? Are they not an image of a scribble on the screen, or sounds that you hear? In thinking in words, are you not thinking in sounds or scribbles? Wouldn't these be the form your thoughts take? Sure, words are just other types of images that our thoughts take.

Think about your view of the world.
— Harry Hindu

As an image, to be stored and retrieved? — bongo fury

No. As the form the information about the world relative to your eyes takes.

Not the way I see it. First of all, I personally try not to declare ‘truth’, because I understand that what might I think or say is true can only be a limited perspective of what is true. — Possibility

I don't get this at all. So we're not suppose to believe anything you say?

The question I have is: what is your perspective of the possibility of ‘objective truth’ as a concept? — Possibility

I gave my explanation in my reply to SophistiCat on the first page.

Seems to me that "objective truth" is only hazy on a philosophy forum. Objectivity and truth are often used interchangeably. You are asserting truth (asserting truth doesn't mean that what you are asserting is actually true - only that you intend for it to be interpreted as a given and the basis for your other forthcoming ideas that are intended to be a given as well because disagreeing would mean that you are wrong and I am right) any time you make a statement that you intend to be about the shared world. Being that some statement is about the shared world means that it is objective - that we all are shaped by and beholden to, the same truth, even if we don't believe it (delusions)). — Harry Hindu

In a sense 'objective truth' is a redundant statement. It's equivalent to saying 'true truth'.

There are no such things as 'subjective truth'. This is equivalent to saying 'false truth'.

"Tim likes apples" is not objectively true? Isn't it a fact that Tim likes apples? Are you saying there are subjective facts? — jamalrob

Exactly. Subjective truths/facts are category errors. A subjective fact would be that the 'the apple is good'. 'Good' has nothing to do with the apple. It has to do with a mental state. Subjective truths are projected mental states, where objective truths are obtained mental states - obtained by the senses, not projected by the mind.

It seems to me that your are starting from a place in certainty when asserting that all starting points are inherently uncertain.

Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true? — Possibility

I agree that the statement “We never know what is true” is logically false, given a mutual understanding that claims to ‘knowledge’ are claims to ‘truth’. — Possibility

I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always. — Possibility

You seem to be contradicting yourself. In speaking with me, you say that we can't know the truth - you can't even assert that what you said is true, yet with Banno, you acknowledge that we can know what it is true, and that what Banno says is fact. :lol:

So it is in using it that we develop confidence in what it is. Prediction error enables the organism to construct a more accurate interoceptive map of reality. — Possibility

So in using something you are able to declare what is true? In using, are you not attempting to falsify the information you have about the object you are using? Are we not performing a falsification of the scientific theories that the technology is based on when using our smartphones? When the smartphone doesn't work when using it a certain way, is that a limitation of the smartphone, or a limitation of you knowledge of how the smartphone works and is supposed to be used?

What are dreams?
— Harry Hindu

I hoped you wouldn't ask that one :confused: — bongo fury

Why? Is it a stupid or difficult question?

I don't store and retrieve images, though. (You're excused for assuming I do, as it was the standard model of brain function before the neural network revolution.) I train myself to select among and produce actual, external images to be appropriate representations of (actual) objects. — bongo fury

Would you say that dreams have images? If so, where do the images come from? If you had a dream about a brain, could you draw a picture of it after you wake up?

But the external image itself is an object (a picture, polaroid, drawing, etc.) that represents other objects. How did your brain learn to represent things if it is't something that it already does?

Would you say that a computer that performs facial recognition has an image in its working memory that it measures and compares to the measurements of other images in it's long-term memory?

Think about your view of the world. The world seems located relative to your eyes. The view is a structure of sensory information - of the world relative to the eyes, but the world isn't located relative to the eyes. So the structure is simply a model that we call a "view" as if we see the world as it is through a clear window, or watching a film show (naive realism).

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result. — praxis

Oh, no. I expected the same result. My post wasnt for you, but for reasonable readers to see how unreasonable you are being.

Do I honestly need to point out that even if you're watching a film about neurons, it's still composed entirely of internal images? — neonspectraltoast

Exactly, what is the relationship between the film show and the neurons if not a relationship of representation?

If I asked you to draw a picture of neurons, then where would you be getting your image from to duplicate with paper and pencil? What does the final picture look like? What would it resemble?

How did camouflage evolve if organisms don't have visual experiences?

What are dreams?

I suppose that is a plausible sci-fi scenario. I think a more realistic one would restrict "p-zombie" to creatures un-afflicted, or un-gifted, with the symbolic, referential skills that create the illusion of an internal illusion. — bongo fury

It seems like we are saying the same thing - that you are un-afflicted and I am. What would I be afflicted with if you say that what I'm afflicted with isn't happening?

And you believe this is a reasonable claim? — praxis

Absolutely. The reason being your inability to answer a direct question.

I asked you what philosophical view is well established. I'll go easy on you and ask for only one example. Give me the name of the philosophical view and the name of the original proponent so we can continue. And then I would like to know if that philosophical view took into account all the prior "well established" views when it was originally proposed. For instance, did Aristotle or Wittgenstein take into account any prior "well established" views when they proposed their own? What about Darwin or Newton? Would Aristotle and Wittgenstein make the same claims if they had access to all the well established scientific views that we have now?

Now, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a well established view, but that is a scientific view, not a philosophical one. How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable?

If the it refers to a thing you call "a mind", or some "mental images", then we have to deal with our disagreement about what we are talking about, because I don't accept the existence of such things. — bongo fury

Then this is the result one would expect when a non-p-zombie attempts to communicate the concept of "mind" to a p-zombie. You are a p-zombie and I am not, hence your lack of understanding of what I am talking about.

‘Given’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true - this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which I am asking the question. I’ve stated it because I don’t automatically assume this to be objectively true. If you disagree with this limitation, feel free to make your case. — Possibility

Then it's true that this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which you are asking the question, and that is the case whether I agree or not from my perspective (objective)? In talking about the nature of your perspective, are you speaking the truth, and is how you explain your perspective how it actually is even though I might disagree? Would I be wrong in disagreeing? What would that mean - to be wrong, or right about the nature of your perspective?

If I had said ‘no one can ever be absolutely certain’, that would imply objectivity. By ‘we’, I’m referring to those of us involved in the discussion; you (collectively) and I. Again, if you disagree with the perspective as given, then make your case. — Possibility

So you're saying that the nature of reality within this discussion is different than outside of this discussion?

‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute. I’m inviting people to explore the relevant issues from a position of uncertainty. — Possibility

Is it true that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute? It seems to me that what is in dispute is that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute.

I would have to disagree. I know of them thanks to sitting my actual self in an actual theatre and watching an actual film show. — bongo fury

Then nerve firings are a kind of film show? I don't get it.

I'm questioning both, of course. — bongo fury

Both of what?

Your inner film show doesn't. — bongo fury

Why did you use the term "film show" to refer to something that supposedly doesn't happen?

It seems to me that you are saying that the illusion is how we see ourselves from the inside (qualitative experience), not the outside (brains with nerve firings)? You're saying that you see how I truly am from your perspective (as a body with a brain with nerve firings), but how I see myself is an illusion (as a film show), yet the film show is the form the nerve firings and brains take.

Well, I’m not looking for a definition. I agree that there is no generally accepted meaning of these words. The formulations are meant to challenge three commonly held notions of ‘objective truth’.
— Possibility

I doubt that we can even talk about commonly held notions here. Most people have rather hazy notions of objectivity and of truth, and 'objective truth' is doubly hazy. But most of all, I just don't see what would motivate such a discussion. So far it seems to be meandering in the haze, just as one would expect. — SophistiCat

Seems to me that "objective truth" is only hazy on a philosophy forum. Objectivity and truth are often used interchangeably. You are asserting truth (asserting truth doesn't mean that what you are asserting is actually true - only that you intend for it to be interpreted as a given and the basis for your other forthcoming ideas that are intended to be a given as well because disagreeing would mean that you are wrong and I am right) any time you make a statement that you intend to be about the shared world. Being that some statement is about the shared world means that it is objective - that we all are shaped by and beholden to, the same truth, even if we don't believe it (delusions)).

But the nerve firings actually happen. Your inner film show doesn't. That's what I'm saying, anyway. — bongo fury

But you only know of nerve firings thanks to your "inner film show". To even relate the mind to an "inner film show" means that there is something about the mind that is like an external film show. To talk about your mind, what are you talking about? How do you know that you have a mind? How do you know you have thoughts?

Your thoughts take some form from your perspective (qualitative), and a different form from my perspective (quantitative). Maybe the problem is that we are looking at the same thing from different perspectives and end up with different representations of the same thing. A representation is a kind of correlation and we make these correlations between neural states and mental states - from our different perspectives.

It sounds as if you are a naive realist - explaining the world as if it is how you experience it - with brains and nerve firings and all. Is a p-zombie a naive realist or an indirect realist? If our minds model the world, then brains are models of other minds and indirect realism would be the case. We claim that the world is "physical" because of how we experience it, but then that term doesn't apply to the experience itself. If we what we mean by "physical" is "mental model", then "physical" is just an idea, not the actual nature of the world. So instead of saying the world is "physical" which you would only do so if you had a mind that models the world as bounded objects in an inner film show, we could say that the world is processes or relationships that are modeled by the mind (which is just another process or relationship) as "physical" bounded objects. This is how we model the process of other minds as "physical" bounded objects called "brains".

So the illusion isn't the qualitative quality of mind that is a process, rather it is the world as composed of quantitative, physical, bounded objects, that is the illusion.

As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote. — praxis

The problem here is that you're not reading what I wrote.

I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human? — praxis

Sure, but being human also entails using reason, and it's seems to me that you're all emotion and no reason, because your reply was unreasonable, hence my request to clarify, and your refusal to do so.

Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true, is ‘objective truth’: — Possibility

I love these contradictions.

If its a "given", isnt it true? And if it applies to "we", and not just "you", isnt it objective?

So basically you're saying that it is objectively true that we can never be absolutely certain that what is true, is objective truth.

Seem to me that you need to know what a word means (what word refers to) to know how to use it. When looking up a word in the dictionary, we find the definition and then examples of the use of the word - two separate entries in the dictionary for the same word, so it seems to me that the definition (the meaning of the word) is separate from its use.

Merriam-Webster's definition of meaning:
1a: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
dictionary definitions
b: a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c: a product of defining

Merriam-Webster's definition of information:
1a(1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
(2): INTELLIGENCE, NEWS
(3): FACTS, DATA
b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
c(1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data
(2): something (such as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (such as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct
d: a quantitative measure of the content of information
specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed

From the bolded text, one can claim that noise is information. If you can't make a statement expressing the essential nature of noise, then how can you make the claim that it is different from information? And in making a statement expressing the nature of noise, you'd necessarily imply that noise has meaning.

John D. Collier's website

Dr. Collier mentions "enformation" in the first link I provided to you in the other thread:


I would like to add John D. Collier's Information, Causation, and Computation and Causation is the Transfer of Information

I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted. — praxis

It's amazing that you seem satisfied with this circular non-answer to my question.

Specifically, which philosophical views are well established? If you can't answer it, then retract your faulty statement, or are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum?

The point is to write something and give and/or receive critique regarding how well written it is and/or debate the ideas embedded. — I like sushi

In seeking critique regarding how well written something is, are you asking for objective criticism or subjective criticism? How well something is written can be subjective. Why would you want to know how well written something is for a specific person unless you intended on communicating your idea to just that person? Something is well written if it gets the idea across.

If what you mean by "well written" is that it covers all the bases and leaves no questions to be asked or clarifications to be made, then it seems to me that what we would actually be doing then is critiquing the embedded ideas by applying logic.

The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics. — praxis

Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.

What philosophical views are "well established"?

why are we, the readers of this forum, here, on this forum — Pfhorrest

I'm here to learn about other ideas and expose my ideas criticism. I don't state my ideas just to look at myself write. I expect someone to read it and come up with questions that I haven't asked myself, and then attempt to answer them or change my ideas. Criticizing your own ideas is difficult, especially when you have an emotional attachment to them. We all need help in hammering out our ideas with constructive criticism. Yes, interactions on this forum and the previous one is the reason some of my ideas have evolved. It seems like too many people are on this forum to do the exact opposite, which isn't philosophy. It's more akin to political propaganda and religious proselytizing.

One possible source of confusion among posts here is the conflation of information with meaning. The two are not the same. Shannon was quite clear the information is an entirely syntactical issue, and has nothing to do with semantics:

"The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages" (my emphasis).

Information can be entirely meaningless, utterly devoid of significance, sheer gibberish - it would nonetheless be information. The OP is no doubt trying to milk semantics from information. But it's a mostly dead end. — StreetlightX

So meaning is how useful some bit of information is?

It seems to me that it is all useful to someone at some time, even when they don't know it, as in the case where someone is rejecting actual information in favor of their potential information. Some bit of potential information may be useful in keeping the truth (actual information) hidden from your emotional centers of your brain (delusions), but none of that is actual information.