Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness
CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory claims that synchronous neuron firing generates strong electromagnetic fields which build up such that even further neurons are activated via an amplifying feedback loop. Upon reaching a sufficiently robust level within relatively large regions of the brain, EM fields can graduate to CEMI fields, integrating brain matter into the substance of fully conscious awareness. The originator of this theory seems to imply that this EM field's radiation plays a pivotal role in producing qualitative experience within the brain's matter, and this radiation differs considerably depending on the quantity and kind of neurons which are firing in synchrony, giving rise to the large variety in percepts observed
The following is my similar "coherence field" theory: the binding mechanism closely associated with radiation amongst the brain's EM field varies primarily with respect to the amount of synchronous electrical potential involved in generating it, more indirectly due to the particular structure of neurons which produce it. This EM field is the result of relatively uniform types of electrical gradient mediated by ion channels etc., integrating brain matter in consort with the field's radiative properties. The brain's diverse subjectivity stems from the way atoms in biochemical pathways superposition with each other and with radiation to form percepts such as sights, sounds, scents, etc. This may actually consist in dual binding mechanisms: EM field phase locking between neural networks as induced somewhat remotely by fluctuating electric charges, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and superposition between EM radiation and biochemical arrays which produces percepts by wave and wavicle blending. A hypothesis is that the many nodes of superposed photonic and atomic fields, as waves of conventional matter, are capable of responding to further types of field phenomena, more or less nonlocal in causation, which have not yet been substantially characterized by science.
Both of these theories might have an aspect of the truth. Perhaps consciousness consists in gradations of more or less CEMI-type fields depending on brain region, with high-level CEMI awareness centered in particular (though perhaps somewhat roving) places within the brain, so that for instance the ability of the brain to register hyperconscious mental images is a separate process from inducement of the fully attentive optical field, while each having distinctive CEMI-like properties, though the binding capacity of action potential-induced electromagnetism, radiation, etc. viewed in its entirety exists by way of a relatively simple duality of mechanisms responsible for consciousness' stability in the presence of fluctuating stimuli, uniting neural networks, radiative/biomolecular fields and coherence fields in general as a perceptual mind.
So the field of consciousness is somewhat particularized into peak awareness in line with CEMI theory, though not enough for even human agents to introspect the mind with a huge amount of resolution, but this of course can vary between individuals. Electromagnetism and EM radiation participate in coordinating and binding diverse percepts (specially adapted arrays of superposition amongst entanglement) and neural networks within a single matrix of mind, the integrated "will" and "what it is like" to experience existence, because the brain's coherence field is rather functionally homogeneous and economical in its fundamental mechanisms of synthesis. I would claim that due to similarities between the tissues and cells of many species, there is probably a "what it is like" to be an insect, maybe even a bacterium, especially in the presence of relatively strong electromagnetic forces from even external origins. Lower introspective resolution does not imply a lack of perception and feeling, and higher introspective resolution can readily cooccur with some perceptual deficits. I suppose this is contra the perspective of materialistic determinism or "objectification" commonly directed towards animals or the disabled.
Maybe neuron function specifically can be differentiated into more, less, and majority non-CEMI processes, yet all nonetheless synchronized and bound together within a relatively stable electromagnetic matrix. Are CEMI mechanisms an especially accentuated instance of less self-aware but likewise conscious EM and radiative field effects operating globally within the brain? This would explain the serial (nonparallel) processing characteristic of full awareness, as a relatively localized and disjuncted interruption of the brain's global field by sufficiently strong, "CEMI" fields, the radiation of which destructively interferes with radiation that surrounds them. An interesting inquiry would be as to where unmistakably CEMI-level fields are located within the brain. Could the CEMI centers be wherever fMRI indicates blood flow is particularly concentrated, or even more localized than that? Do sources of EM radiation, including those of CEMI fields, bypass neurons somewhat and interact directly, maybe as a sort of nested, morphing pattern?
The issue of how certain quantumlike mechanisms such as superpositions within molecules might avoid thermodynamic decoherence is a pertinent matter in this context. Maybe some combination of cytoskeletal fibers, membranes, and specially adapted biochemical pathways that perhaps resemble photosynthetic reaction center complexes in their quantum flexibility might explain it. Is superposition much more pervasive than conventional atomic theory suggests, perhaps even a property consonant in some measure with the fundamental structure of solutions despite heat entropy, with postulated biochemical pathway involvement in the constitution of qualitative percepts being distinguished by degree more than kind?
Provided superposition is common in the brain and elsewhere, the quantity of possible mechanisms available to perception is staggering. This could probably be a new scientific "field". What do you think?
The following is my similar "coherence field" theory: the binding mechanism closely associated with radiation amongst the brain's EM field varies primarily with respect to the amount of synchronous electrical potential involved in generating it, more indirectly due to the particular structure of neurons which produce it. This EM field is the result of relatively uniform types of electrical gradient mediated by ion channels etc., integrating brain matter in consort with the field's radiative properties. The brain's diverse subjectivity stems from the way atoms in biochemical pathways superposition with each other and with radiation to form percepts such as sights, sounds, scents, etc. This may actually consist in dual binding mechanisms: EM field phase locking between neural networks as induced somewhat remotely by fluctuating electric charges, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and superposition between EM radiation and biochemical arrays which produces percepts by wave and wavicle blending. A hypothesis is that the many nodes of superposed photonic and atomic fields, as waves of conventional matter, are capable of responding to further types of field phenomena, more or less nonlocal in causation, which have not yet been substantially characterized by science.
Both of these theories might have an aspect of the truth. Perhaps consciousness consists in gradations of more or less CEMI-type fields depending on brain region, with high-level CEMI awareness centered in particular (though perhaps somewhat roving) places within the brain, so that for instance the ability of the brain to register hyperconscious mental images is a separate process from inducement of the fully attentive optical field, while each having distinctive CEMI-like properties, though the binding capacity of action potential-induced electromagnetism, radiation, etc. viewed in its entirety exists by way of a relatively simple duality of mechanisms responsible for consciousness' stability in the presence of fluctuating stimuli, uniting neural networks, radiative/biomolecular fields and coherence fields in general as a perceptual mind.
So the field of consciousness is somewhat particularized into peak awareness in line with CEMI theory, though not enough for even human agents to introspect the mind with a huge amount of resolution, but this of course can vary between individuals. Electromagnetism and EM radiation participate in coordinating and binding diverse percepts (specially adapted arrays of superposition amongst entanglement) and neural networks within a single matrix of mind, the integrated "will" and "what it is like" to experience existence, because the brain's coherence field is rather functionally homogeneous and economical in its fundamental mechanisms of synthesis. I would claim that due to similarities between the tissues and cells of many species, there is probably a "what it is like" to be an insect, maybe even a bacterium, especially in the presence of relatively strong electromagnetic forces from even external origins. Lower introspective resolution does not imply a lack of perception and feeling, and higher introspective resolution can readily cooccur with some perceptual deficits. I suppose this is contra the perspective of materialistic determinism or "objectification" commonly directed towards animals or the disabled.
Maybe neuron function specifically can be differentiated into more, less, and majority non-CEMI processes, yet all nonetheless synchronized and bound together within a relatively stable electromagnetic matrix. Are CEMI mechanisms an especially accentuated instance of less self-aware but likewise conscious EM and radiative field effects operating globally within the brain? This would explain the serial (nonparallel) processing characteristic of full awareness, as a relatively localized and disjuncted interruption of the brain's global field by sufficiently strong, "CEMI" fields, the radiation of which destructively interferes with radiation that surrounds them. An interesting inquiry would be as to where unmistakably CEMI-level fields are located within the brain. Could the CEMI centers be wherever fMRI indicates blood flow is particularly concentrated, or even more localized than that? Do sources of EM radiation, including those of CEMI fields, bypass neurons somewhat and interact directly, maybe as a sort of nested, morphing pattern?
The issue of how certain quantumlike mechanisms such as superpositions within molecules might avoid thermodynamic decoherence is a pertinent matter in this context. Maybe some combination of cytoskeletal fibers, membranes, and specially adapted biochemical pathways that perhaps resemble photosynthetic reaction center complexes in their quantum flexibility might explain it. Is superposition much more pervasive than conventional atomic theory suggests, perhaps even a property consonant in some measure with the fundamental structure of solutions despite heat entropy, with postulated biochemical pathway involvement in the constitution of qualitative percepts being distinguished by degree more than kind?
Provided superposition is common in the brain and elsewhere, the quantity of possible mechanisms available to perception is staggering. This could probably be a new scientific "field". What do you think?
Comments (53)
a. the strong EM field of the brain is a global substrate largely responsible for integrating cognition
b. biochemical pathways blend or "superposition" into the EM radiation of this field to participate in forming percepts
c. CEMI fields are a primary source of full conscious awareness as especially synchronized, densely activated neural networks, and the ultraconcentrated radiative/biochemical blending within this type of field generates the perceptual substance of intentional attentiveness or "will", whether visual, verbal etc.
2) Can we on the basis of that theory make any new statements regarding free will?
1) The frequencies of electronic devices are too high to affect low frequency brain waves. Transcranial magnetic stimulation has been proven to alter or disrupt thought patterns, memories etc.
2) Free will exists to the extent that CEMI fields as the cause of our intentional cognitions are active agents in brain function and behavior, integrating neural networks to produce a more widely and densely distributed synchronization that is our fully aware consciousness, with superposition between biochemical pathways and EM radiation forming the percepts of these fields.
I'll just provide my usual commentary on your theories about consciousness and then leave you alone. CEMI is an unsupported, far-fetched theory of the origins of consciousness. As far as I can tell "coherence field theory" is just another name for your attempts to use the so-called "weirdness" of quantum mechanics to explain consciousness with no scientific basis. This is not science, it's pseudo-science.
From my reading, it seems that CEMI theory is supported by lots of evidence, and a model based on axon/dendrite connections alone is obviously incapable of solving the binding problem, whereas CEMI theory easily does. "Far-fetched" isn't even pseudoscientific.
I didn't say that "weirdness" proves quantum mechanics is involved with consciousness. I said that superpositions amongst entangled molecules, producing quantum fields in specially adapted, emergent biochemical pathways, blend with EM radiation to constitute the perceptual mind. That's not pseudoscience: trillions of atoms have been simultaneously entangled in experiments, and the de Broglie wavelengths of some molecules are compatible with the idea that various degrees of superposition between atoms undoubtedly occur, even to the limited extent suggested by conventional atomic theory.
Does a feeling of consciously "straining" result from CEMI fields maxing out their capacity to activate dendritic potentials and perhaps further neuronal biochemistry, a sort of smoothly wavelike swelling that strives to bring more of the unconscious into the sphere of full conscious awareness, rather than a crisply particularate phenomenon?
The limbic system is the oldest portion of the brain distinctive to more highly developed vertebrates, suggesting that this might be the hub of stream of consciousness (qualitatively robust images, sounds etc.).
Structures of the limbic system are densely packed together in the core of the brain, making massive amounts of synesthesia possible due to both close proximities and also numerous white matter connections to various distant grey matter regions with their more saturating (less impeded by myelin) CEMI-type radiative/biochemical/EM fields, so that rats smelling in stereo, dogs generating mental images in association with smells, humans visualizing sounds etc. are not difficult to account for.
If the limbic system is the locus of stream of consciousness, it is core to qualitative perception in addition to its role in processing and routing sensory or motor signals, and its location at the center of the brain would maximally protect this essential role in subjectivity from damage.
The inquiry might then be into what regions, primarily within grey matter, participate in producing stream of intentional consciousness via CEMI fields, also how these most substantially CEMI regions are connected and thus coordinated. For instance, the dorsal and ventral visual pathways could be integrated by action potentials of equivalent duration running both ways between them such that CEMI field properties of vision in these separate portions of the brain may, in conjunction with grey matter fields of the limbic system and additional coherence field phenomena, generate a synchronous, perhaps largely permeating field array. Research along these lines could enable science to solve the binding problem.
Could wormholes, rather than a warping of spacetime, be a direct route connecting regions of hyperspace, an in fact common occurrence induced by moderately to highly concentrated energy sources such as brains etc.?
Atoms, comprised of subatomic particles and their quantized arrangements, have electric charge.
The movement of charged particles produces electromagnetic fields.
The highly charged nature of ionic movement with its voltage differentials in the nervous system and brain gives rise to a strong electromagnetic field.
These charges and strong electromagnetic fields participate in synchronizing neural networks with their photonic (radiative) waves and particles (standing waves).
Radiative waves can superposition as in the visible spectrum, particles can superposition to a limited extent while they are atomically bonded or otherwise entangled, and radiative waves can superposition with particles.
The motion of charged particles in neural networks creates standing wave oscillations (brain waves) coursing through this biochemical matter that take effect on a global scale within the nervous system.
The emergent organization of particles and radiation within this highly charged, electromagnetically robust neuromaterial field is a main facet of perceptual consciousness. Brain wave readings via EEG are a measurable signature of this synthetic electromagnetic substance’s compositional contours at the macroscopic scale.
This synthetic substance contributes toward generating qualitative percepts to the extent that its constituent matter superpositions while entangled in atomic bonds and additional electromagnetic superstructures, amounting to resonances between various combinations of particle and radiative quanta, etc.
Studies have shown that ion channels and synaptic structures are sensitive to EM fields. This is the basic evidence so far in favor of CEMI field theory, which claims fully aware consciousness is associated with mechanisms that generate the brain's strongest, most concentrated EM field effects, synchronizing neural networks via a process of "phase locking".
Additional field phenomena resembling quantum coherence in their integrating effects may add a further dimension to qualitative consciousness.
EM complexes such as CEMI fields with their radiative and standing waves as well as coherence phenomena in general, including all properties of entanglement and superposition, can be subsumed with the term "coherence field".
Science and pseudo-science are part of one and the same body: science. Calling something "pseudo", also in science, bears witness to a conformation to the standard. If you actually knew science, instead of following the gossip spread, like the gossip that calls this theory "pseudo" science, you would see it tries to approach consciousness indeed on basis of QM, but without you having actual knowledge of QM. I think it's this lack of knowledge that makes you say it's pseudo. And even if it was pseudo, then what? The pseudo of today is the standard tomorrow. The theory in the thread is one of the scientific theories among many. Calling it pseudo already at the start, without having looked in it (and I'm sure you haven't and are ignorant about its ingredients), only goes to show that you repeat gossip like a parrot, following the so-called expert opinion. Trying to beat it already at the start on the base of irrational underbelly feelings. So take your pick. Either shut up, or engage. I think the last is hard for you. Remains the former. Luckily you said to leave the @Enrique alone. I'm not sure what your motivation was to even comment. Besides providing an irrational and non-constructive commentary/critique. But if you wanna do so, who am I to stop you?
I think a field is too symmetrical a phenomenon whereas consc. Is more asymmetric.
I also think consciousness is organically driven, and not atmos. It doesn't come from space.
In the lab, experimental computers programmed to evolve on their own have spontaneously adapted connections between logic gates that are mediated by supervening electromagnetic fields. Only a fraction of the logic gates developed to function via wiring connections. The inventor of CEMI field theory has suggested this as the basic template of the percept/brain interface's structure and evolution, speculating that complex computers of this kind will be conscious in a way comparable to human consciousness.
Identifying mechanisms of percept formation, awareness and will of course has huge implications for physiology and medicine, in addition to the possibility that physics and chemistry will be revolutionized by modeling the material basis of qualia.
Doesn't there lurk a contradiction here? How can something evolve on its own, while being programmed?
Quoting Enrique
What are supervening EM fields? I mean, what are their origins? If they, instead of the wiring, are the cause of circuitry change, what is the material motor that drives?
Is the same going on in the brain, according to CEMI? If so, then what is the material generator that gives rise to the EM fields that drive neuronal circuitry change?
Quoting Varde
A real or virtual photon field can be as asymmetrical as the matter that produces them.
The rather simplistic computer chip (a hundred or so logic gates) was designed to evolve its structure through an open-ended process of a few thousand iterations (I can't remember what the computational task was intended to be). Only thirty some logic gates turned out to function through direct connections, while the rest were recruited by an electromagnetic field emergent from overall electron flow. The chip evolved itself to be mostly parallel processing integrated primarily by an electromagnetic field, and the author of the paper which describes the experiment proposed that this is the basic mechanism of consciousness, except that in brains the electromagnetic field is generated by ion rather than electron flow.
The theory is that ion flow produces a supervenient EM field which neural networks have evolved for responding to, but in a much more complex way than the experimental computer chip. Research on neurons in vitro has proven that action potential propagation can be very sensitive to electromagnetic fields via ion channels, and at this stage these membrane channels are the most likely candidate for structures that mediate EM/cellular interactions.
If photonic radiation within the EM field binds with biochemistry to create nodes of superposition, this might partially account for the "what it is like to be" aspect of matter waves.
Can you even roughly estimate the amount and range of EM radiation from a biochemical pathway in a neuron, for the sake of demonstration composed of fifty thousand atoms, and also an action potential (wave of ionic current) with a length of perhaps 1 cm, energy of 2.4*10^-7 Joules, and 14 volts per micrometer?
I'm trying to get a sense for the scale and intensity at which radiation of the brain's EM field is in effect. Possibly I'm not considering the appropriate values, what do you think?
How if at all would extremely strong voltage fluctuations, 14 million volts per meter in a neuron, four times the amount required to generate lightning, affect the behavior of atoms and radiation in the brain?
CEMI seems to be an adjunct to IIT (Integrated Information Theory). And it's similar in some ways to my own informal theory of Consciousness. Whereas, CEMI uses the metaphor of a physical electromagnetic field (EMF), I call it a metaphysical "Information Field". That's because, in my philosophical model, Information (EnFormAction ; causation) is prior-to physical reality. It's more like Energy in the sense of immeasurable (Potential) causation, than Matter as measurable stuff. Note : Energy is only measurable in its material effects, after the causal event.
A somewhat more concrete metaphor is to compare an "Information Field" to a Quantum Field. Unlike an EMF, a QF is composed of Virtual Particles (continuous mathematical waves) that have the Potential to become Actual bits of measurable matter (photons). The "perturbation" that triggers the phase transition from Potential to Actual is the completion of an Information "feedback loop". That works like completing an electrical circuit from battery to machine and back again to the Source. As I mentioned, this is a meta-physical philosophical hypothesis instead of a physical scientific theory. But, even the various scientific theories must eventually deal with the mysterious Mental aspects of Consciousness & Information. :nerd:
What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
The mental is a hard but, for some, inevitable subject to grapple with lol
It is difficult for me to conceive of substantive causality as immaterial or lacking in matter (I'm more of a hylomorphism than ideal Forms guy), but posters at this forum seem to promote the idea that potential, some sort of latency, actually exists in a sense. This has led me to ponder what a physical field actually is and how it differs from the alleged informational substrate so popular with philosophers.
Thinking about the brain's EM field, it is comprised of standing wave oscillations produced by synchronously moving ions with their electric charges, and flowing through neurons almost like a shock wave. So fluctuating electrical potential certainly causes energy transfer, but this is not distinct from the matter itself, it is instead an enigmatic property by which the matter acts remotely, within constraints, on what surrounds it as it moves.
The brain is a unique structure because it is so densely packed with charge fluctuations, like I said fourteen MILLION volts per meter or four times the voltage required to generate lightning (but associated with tiny masses and thus modest wattage, why we don't spontaneously combust), that the remote effects of its ions result in an integrated field extending throughout the brain. This does not mean a perturbation at any single point affects every other point, but remote charges in one location influence remote charges in their vicinity, which influences energy flow in neighboring regions and at larger and larger scales until the emergent organization can be likened to a minitiature ocean of electric current, with brain waves as measured by EEG comparable to a gulf stream or the tides.
This alone would not be enough to make the supervenient EM field a functional factor, any more than a sort of rapid sloshing incidental to neuronal wiring, but it has been suggested by experiment that ion channels are responsive to EM fields (the remote effects of moving electric charges) via still poorly understood quantum properties of their chemistry (it has been proposed that the mechanism by which ions travel through channels is wavicle tunneling). Remotely active EM fields seem to be capable of impacting action potential propagation in such a finely grained way that responsiveness occurs on the scale of single ion channels.
The global EM field flows like an ocean within the brain, and the membrane channels, regulating the spatial coordination of ion diffusion which generates this EM field, react to these emergent effects, making the net result a "phase locking" whereby ion channel activation is integrated with the EM field such that charge fluctuations form highly organized patterns on a relatively large scale. The originator of CEMI theory theorizes that the synchronization of neural networks via EM field/ion channel phase locking, once it has reached a sufficient level of integration, is the mechanism by which we exert conscious will, our intentional agency. Relatively global effects of this EM field, the main currents or tides so to speak, precisely are human willing.
Synapses, more specifically the distributing of neurotransmitters and similar chemicals, can be regarded as mediating the temporal dimension of EM field/ion channel "tides", essentially functioning as a sort of extremely complex "moon" mechanism by causing energy flow to occur in recursive patterns on the various timescales of response to an environment: minutes, hours, days, months, years. Synapses integrate neural networks with the intricate biochemical pathways of individual neurons such that the electromagnetic will is pliant to overall chemistry in the body and selection pressures of an ecosystem. Human will, as an assortment of macroscopic EM fields along with related action potential synchronizations and synesthesia effects (verbal thoughts, visual imagining, logical reasoning, etc.), has real causation, but is simultaneously tempered by interpolated and surrounding chemistry.
What I've been thinking and learning about recently is how the photonic radiation of EM fields might affect brain function, and I haven't really come to a conclusion yet, but as I've discussed in this thread, I suspect some sort of superposition mechanism blends radiation into atoms such that percepts result, what philosophy terms "qualia", the "what it is like to be" of experience.
It might be that consciousness also consists of or is impacted by nonelectromagnetic fields which operate on even larger scales and participate in a much more nonlocal, remote causation. I think this is what philosophy is intuiting when it talks of entities such as the information field you describe. These fields still have to be composed of substance though, they can't be a pure immateriality or merely "possible" existent.
Perhaps the following can be disputed, but I think information theory takes the notion of all actual and possible relations between components of a substance, the "potentiality", and seeks to establish this as in some sense an ontological foundation. Not impractical or invalid per se, for it manages to integrate the abstract modeling paradigm of modern science with a tradition of metaphysics stretching all the way back to the origins of Western philosophy in antiquity. But I think it is a minor error to identify metaphysical concepts with fields that transcend electromagnetism, because causes have to be a product of interacting substances and their properties, tangible in some way, rather than a mere abstraction of the relationships between them, which are really no more than a human concept.
As the founder of CEMI theory describes, the brain contains 10^11 cells while the immune system contains 10^12 cells, and both are extremely integrated, by neuronal wiring and the blood stream respectively, so it can be claimed that the immune system is equivalently complex, but while strategically organized it is obviously not conscious. Charge fluctuations that create emergent EM fields, among additional properties, grant the brain consciousness, an outcome of unique substances the organ is composed of, not mere complexity.
(By the way, a poster at this site informed me that "EMF" stands for electromotive force, not EM field. I was appreciative he pointed that out to me, so I'll relay it to you.)
Part of the difficulty in conceiving of Causality is that we only observe it indirectly in its effects on Matter. Therefore, we typically discuss the Form (Potential) half of hylomophism in terms of the part we know via our physical senses (Actual). Even our metaphysical metaphors are borrowed from examples of the sensory stuff. That's because we only know invisible Forms (abstract pattern ; intentional design) by rational inference & intuitive imagination. But of course, unlike empirical Scientists, theoretical Philosophers have no technological sensory extensions, hence are limited to the use of their old-fashioned rational tools for investigation of metaphysical topics, like Being, Qualia, and Logic. Those immaterial ideas are off-limits to empirical study.
Nevertheless, an old outdated Philosopher analyzed the general notion of Causality into four parts : 1> Formal (Potential or Conceptual) ; 2. Efficient (Energy ; Agency) ; 3> Material (Matter) ; and 4> Final (Purpose). The first & fourth causes are knowable only by philosophical reasoning, while the second & third are subject to empirical Scientific methods. Most modern philosophers have been taught to defer to scientists for knowledge of Reality. But they may forget that the philosophical tool of Reason is what ultimately makes sense of our physical sensations. Since primary (1) Causes are always potential, we can only infer them by rational inference from measurable changes in the stuff our senses are tuned to (2 & 3). Ironically. by following the methods of Empiricism, Philosophers may miss the implications of (4) intentional Purposes (i.e. reasons). Bumbling Nature is assumed to have no purposes, so any knowable & directional patterns must be accidental. And even reliable Energy is not viewed as purposeful Agency. That no-nonsense approach is good for Pragmatic Science, but it makes Theoretical Philosophy impotent to learn anything that is not obvious to the physical senses.
Such aspects of Reality as Existence (Being) and Qualia (Concepts) are often taken for granted, and not subjected to the penetrating gaze of Rational Inference (induction from specific examples to a general conclusion). Specific things are physical & empirical. but general theories are metaphysical & hypothetical. Most of Einstein's contributions to science (Relativity) fall into the latter category, because the concept came before the confirming evidence. Likewise, philosophical scientists postulate "physical fields" to explain puzzling observations, such as the wave/particle nature of light. The answer given below, to your question of what a Field "actually is", provides contradictory or paradoxical examples : "indivisible particles" ; "invisible forces", and "empty space". But even those antithetical notions make sense in terms of post-Shannon Information Theory. Yet, Potential does not exist "actually", but only as the "latency" that Plato called Ideal Forms : the source of all Real things in the world. Hence, Potential is not "Substantive" but Abstract. And Fields are Mathematical (Rational), not Material (Physical). :nerd:
Hylomorphism : every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
Note -- Ironically, Aristotle's "primary matter" is equivalent to Plato's "Form" ("Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own") . and his "form" is the substantial stuff we know as "Matter". Confusing, no?
Metaphysical :
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
What are Quantum Fields made of? :
Instead of continuous, solid objects, matter is composed of indivisible quantum particles, held together through invisible forces that act across empty space.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/17/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real/?sh=1d77f1ef777a
What is "alleged" Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
Abstract : 1.existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Latent : (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed.
Quoting Enrique
Yes, but I defined my abbreviation in the same post : EMF = ElectroMagnetic Field, as a parallel to CEMI.
I think science supports the assertion that empty space does not exist. What was formerly thought of as devoid of substance has always turned out to contain something, whether radiation, interstellar dust, dark energy, even vacuum fluctuations which are actually more haphazard or "entropic" the emptier space is due to a lack of emergent organization (negentropy?) that can absorb this intrinsic energy by virtue of the distributing effect of relational (statistical) complexity.
Rather than a background medium of physically actual empty space, what probably exists is layered fields composed of heterogeneous substance concentrations. Relatively dense locations of matter/energy such as particles are surrounded by a compositionally related field of substance that quickly becomes diffuse, and the more diffuse this field is the faster it can transmit energy through its breadth, exactly as decreasing resistance speeds the flow of current. Stray far enough from centers of mass and the causality is relatively instantaneous. This is the reason for huge speed differentials such as in bosonic compared to most fermionic electromagnetism (something I'm still in the process of learning about, so don't expect an expert opinion, you can find my preliminary thoughts in this thread: Fine Structure Constant, The Sequel), and of course the interaction of fields that have more widely discrepant composition makes the situation more complex and is less well understood, probably responsible for seemingly nonlocal effects such as quantum entanglement.
Information theory can explain the statistical properties of any thus far conceivable system once it has been robustly observed and experimented with, but some sort of realist model has to obtain before the system can be truly mastered. So for instance probabilistic quantum mechanics is a powerful, extremely precise tool within its constraints, and certainly an improvement in many ways compared to classical physics, but barely scratches the surface of the quantumlike world. The more we can excavate through statistical randomness or mathematical structure in general and reach actual substance itself, the more potent knowledge will become.
So I'm essentially claiming that fields are physical rather than purely mathematical entities.
Quoting Gnomon
Interesting idea and, as you say, a contrast with most modern thinking in the domains of science and technology. Perhaps you can clarify: what is the substance of reasoning/inference, how is it fundamentally abstract, and when intention is given causal precedence in your philosophy, is this perspectival, sort of a glorification of thought and meaning from reasoning's idiosyncratic point of view, or rather ontological, in essence as palpably fundamental as matter? How can purpose be as fundamental as its constituent substances?
Yes. But space only exists where there is matter to occupy it, and to provide the curvature we call "Gravity". For example, classical Newtonian physics could not explain how gravity could be "propagated" between bodies, since cause & effect always required some material to transmit the causation. Therefore, the notion of Aether was postulated as a medium for the transmission of forces across the emptiness.
Now though, the general assumption is that vacuum is never completely void : it always has "latent" energy, which is not Actual energy, but merely Potential energy. Yet, that not-quite-real substance is also called a "Quantum Field". But it's still mathematically defined in essentially the same way as Aether. So, for anyone without high-tech instruments, interstellar space appears to human senses as nothingness.
Moreover, the hypothetical field of "zero point energy" can only be measured indirectly, because it is so close to Zero as to be essentially nothing. However, on a cosmic scale there must be enough of it to function as the Cosmic Constant (an unmeasured mathematical concept), which is relied upon to explain the expansion of the universe. So, the hypothetical notions of Aether, Vacuum Energy, and Quantum Fields are useful only for theoretical & mathematical purposes. And that's what I call "meta-physical" :nerd:
What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? :
In quantum field theory we are neglecting gravity. This means we are free to add any constant whatsoever to our definition of energy density. As long as we are free to do this, we can't really say what the vacuum energy density "really is". In other words, if we only consider quantum field theory and not general relativity, the vacuum energy density is NOT DETERMINED.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
Quoting Enrique
In my thesis, the "substance" of Reasoning is EnFormAction. That's not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical thesis, based on post-Shannon Information Theory. Shannon's "Information" was all-or-nothing (1 or 0), while mine is all-of-the-above (0 . . . 100%). It's both Matter & Mind. So, for me, Generic Information is the Aristotelian "Substance" (essence) of everything in our world.
"Intention" is an inherently teleological (purposeful ; goal oriented) direction. And the universe is obviously moving not in just one direction, but in all directions. So, the power behind the expansion is literally Omnidirectional. But, since the ultimate goal of cosmic evolution is not apparent to us, most, but not all, scientists simply assume that there must be no purpose to it. Hence, the implication is that randomness rules. How then to explain the orderly patterns that science is built upon, and which are epitomized in the human Mind?
However, a few pioneering scientists have inferred some kind of Intention, in order to explain the "array of puzzling scientific “coincidences”, such as the unique “initial conditions” and “fine-tuned constants” that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures". That conclusion is typically known as "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". So, there are plenty of philosophical reasons to agree with Aristotle, that an intentional First Cause was logically necessary to get what-we-now-call-evolution started. Evolution may be randomized (shuffled cards), yet the order of the suits (species) is NOT accidental, but due to "Causal Precedence". :joke:
What is EnFormAction? :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Intention :
an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. · the end or object intended; purpose.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intention
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
INTENTION AIMS AT A TARGET
Badass chick with bow and arrow, nice!
Gravity waves traveling at the speed of light have been detected in outer space, so no aether necessary in that case: gravity propagates in a way similar to electromagnetic radiation. I think supradimensional aetherlike substances must exist, responsible for nonlocality, but their motions are probably also some kind of wavelike flow analogous to the radiation we have thus far measured. Dark energy supposedly spreads without dilution, so this might eventually explain the universe's expansion as the wavelike flow of a field.
Einstein's thought experiments into relativity adopted the speed of light as a reference point, worked out implications for contexts that could not yet be observed, then derived a mathematical framework for modeling these imaginary implications which was eventually proven to more precisely approximate a broader scope of phenomena than Newtonian physics, thus expanding the applicability of geometrical reasoning. The theory of relativity was based partially on empirically obtained premises and was fundamentally conceptual, not ontological (I think claims to ontology have thus far always been fallacious). Its genius was that it gave astronomers a solid idea of how to precisely define such abstruse contexts, in a way that was so far ahead of its time, not its ontological accuracy (but perhaps someday ontology will be possible). So I align more with Kant than Plato or Aristotle in this regard.
I would assert that all metaphysical reasoning, to the extent that it is intended to be true, does no more than work out the implications of premises which are more or less arbitrarily assumed to be true at the outset, even if this truth only exists in a conceptual universe such as the forms of abstract mathematics. In Einstein's case, the premises were based on previous observations of the physical world, Maxwell's theories of light and Planck's quantum hypothesis (mostly Einstein's actually) for instance.
I suppose pure mathematics is metaphysical in a sense, but I think its ultimate products are more appropriately identified as conceptual. A better way to categorize the metaphysical might be possible that avoids extrapolating premises beyond the contexts where they are justifiable or implicitly suggesting unwanted premises, in particular by refining the idea of purpose. Have you considered the psychology of metaphysics with your philosophy? I'd be interested to read your opinion about this topic considering how deeply you get into metaphysics. If you're talking about transcendent intention and purpose, you must have dabbled in some psychology of cosmic proportions!
Yes. But even Einstein reluctantly (because of spooky "action at a distance" implications) used the term "aether" to describe the plastic properties of bendable space. In his Relativity model though, it was not pictured as a physical substance, but as an imaginary mathematical "field". Which, in my Information vocabulary, is a Meta-Physical concept instead of a Physical object or substance. The whole idea of curving nothingness was counter-intuitive then, and remains so today. Yet, the math is useful for predicting the behavior of Energy (EnFormAction). So scientists accept the model's utility, even though they don't understand its metaphysical implications. :cool:
Aether theories :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified through the mathematical concept of Geodesics. . . . . It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Note -- Physicists use Mathematical Fields as imaginary models to represent invisible relationships between ideal points. Those models are physical only in the sense that they are used by Physicists to describe things that are not material objects : invisible relations (links) between things.
HINT : THE GRID IS IMAGINARY, HENCE META-PHYSICAL
Quoting Enrique
Yes. It's called "Deductive Reasoning". Which was used by ancient philosophers, long before they had compiled enough empirical evidence to satisfy modern scientific requirements. Einstein predicted that light would bend in a gravity field --- based on logical (not empirical) premises --- before the evidence was obtained. That's why I think of him as a Metaphysican instead of a Physicist. :nerd:
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. ... Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction
Quoting Enrique
Yes. In my Enformationism thesis, Mathematics is both Conceptual and Metaphysical. But my definition of Meta-Physics is different from the typical dictionary entry. The key distinction that I make is between sensory "Perception" (eye ; neurons), and rational "Conception" (mind ; meaning). The latter is what Daniel Dennett derisively called "the Cartesian Theater"; where the Mind (homunculus) is the meta-physical (conceptual) observer of the Brain's physical perceptions. :joke:
[i]Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
CARTESIAN THEATER
Metaphysical fried egg as seen by imaginary Homunculus
Of course! What I call "Meta-Physics" IS Psychology, among other things. But It refers to how we Conceive of the world, instead merely how we Perceive it. Originally, the psychology of the Mind was limited to abstract Philosophy. Then Behaviorism, in order to avoid Metaphysical implications, focused attention only on the mechanics of Perception and Animation. But that approach left the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness untouched.
From the times of Plato & Aristotle, the study of mental phenomena ("Information") was limited mostly to Philosophers. But, since Claude Shannon applied that Intellectual concept to Mechanical computers, many people have forgotten that the term originally applied only to the mysterious Metaphysical contents of Cartesian Minds.
Now, since Information Theory has expanded our horizons, the boundaries of Psychology have invaded other fields of science. The "psychology of metaphysics" has evolved beyond the scope of Psychology into the realm of Cosmology. Here's a sampler of recent books, written mainly by scientists, who are not Psychologists, Their common denominator is a role for psychological & physical Information in all aspects of Reality :
Incomplete Nature --- Terrence Deacon , Biologist (Aboutness)
Reality Is Not What It Seems --- Carlo Rovelli , Physicist (Illusions)
Information and the Nature of Reality --- Paul Davies, et al , Physicist (From Physics to Metaphysics)
Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight --- David Krakauer, ed , (Complexity)
From Matter to Life --- Paul Davies, et al , Cosmologist , (Information and Causality)
So, if you too want to "dabble" in spooky mental meta-physics, I'm available to show you how "transcendent intention and purpose" can be found in the Metaphysical (Ideal) and the Physical (Real) World. If you know where to look. :smile:
Note -- this thread may not be the appropriate place for such distractions.
Do you have references or materials you can provide to support this theory?
Intriguing that the homunculus is placed where the cerebellum is located, which contains half the brain's neurons and has the most diversely intricate and compact structure of any brain region, implicated in mental imagery, language, attention and additional roles, not merely coordination. Fish and sharks don't even have a cerebrum; their entire higher consciousness is generated by an enlarged cerebellum that includes further types of neurons not found in mammals or birds. The cerebellum's anatomy has been researched in depth, but its modes of functioning are still not well understood. It will be fascinating to discover how much of our higher consciousness resides outside the neocortex.
Interesting how Einstein likened the substrate of general relativity to aether. Goes to show how much of a realist he was, always looking for the structural substance underlying statistical mechanics and quantum probability, including what he intuited must be varieties of direct causal linkage. I'm of course not familiar with the nuts and bolts math of general relativity, but he must have envisioned fluctuating distributions of conventional mass and energy, the sizes and forces of which are proportional to morphology of a saturating, aetherlike medium they cohere with. Imagine a grid and the curvatures within it delineating the bounds and relationships of forces, wavicles, aetherlike substances etc. as a heterogeneous patchwork.
Quantum mechanics is still extremely statistical and ambiguous as a model, not even having approached the stage where it can be integrated into a general relativistic framework, though I think the concept of decoherence, a return to more realist interpretation of the wave function concept (Schrodinger was one of Einstein's main allies by the way), along with improved instrumentation and experimental designs might accomplish it. Einstein was ahead of even our time.
On the issue of Cartesian theater vs. Dennettism, I think my opinion is somewhere in between.
As I've described in this thread, I suspect the mind, including qualia and intentional will, is largely composed of neural networking, electromagnetic forces, quantum superpositions, biochemistry in general such that consciousness can be entirely explained in terms of matter. If a so-called metaphysical influence exists, which seems intuitively true, this is simply a nonelectromagnetic field that is infused into the brain and environment, interacting with conventional matter via similar superposition mechanisms and to this point unknown physical forces.
I don't regard mind and meaning as a fundamentally separate domain from consciousness' constituent substances, but as Bertrand Russell explained, a gap between knowledge by acquaintance (subjectivity) and knowledge by description (objectivity) currently obtains, so psychology/phenomenology and neuroscience/physics are separate disciplines, each with idiosyncratic and important contributions to make, though as theories of consciousness in matter and the neuroscience of motivation progress, subjectivity and objectivity will increasingly blend.
fMRI reveals conscious states as reported by subjects to be correlated with such widely distributed activation in the brain that I doubt anything like a homunculus actually exists, though of course various aspects of physical reality are mapped onto many brain regions in highly patterned ways. Consciousness emerges from the entire brain, probably in addition to nonelectromagnetic fields that roughly correspond with the traditional idea of aether, a gap in our theorizing that we know must eventually be filled by something.
Admit that I don't yet understand why reifying information has become the standard. Seems strange that the concept of information is so liberally applied to physical structures which are not organized such that they have the capacity to interpret it. "It from bit" makes no sense to me except from the perspective of a mathematical modeling that is specific to humanlike minds, but I'll have to check out the books you've recommended and then perhaps I will comprehend better. I don't think we should be unrestrainedly attempting to create our environment in the image of intelligent computation or humanity will get destroyed by our own technology, The Matrix, Terminator etc.. Information should be our tool, not our religion. I subscribe to humanism rather than transhumanism, mostly because women are so fine lol
Anything written about CEMI field theory and quantum biology by Johnjoe McFadden is excellent. Searching around for the researchers and theories that get associated with him will yield insight.
Yes. Einstein initiated the new paradigm of Quantum Theory, but as a realist, he resisted its idealist implications for years. He also resisted the new paradigm of cosmology that we call the Big Bang, because he believed the universe was revolving in place, hence eternal. However, I think he was open-minded enough that, if he was alive today, he would accept the preponderance of evidence supporting both of those new worldviews.
The Enformationism thesis is my amateur synopsis of another new paradigm : an "information theoretic" worldview. As one writer put it, this is another "Copernican Revolution" in perspective. But, we are still in the early stages of constructing a scientific model around the notion of Information as the fundamental basis of reality. Note that in the links below, it's still posed as a question, not a fact. However, I have adopted the universality & ubiquity of Generic Information as the core of my personal philosophical worldview. :nerd:
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/
Copernican Revolution, shift in the field of astronomy from a geocentric understanding of the universe, centred around Earth, to a heliocentric understanding, centred around the Sun, as articulated by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century.
Quoting Enrique
"It From Bit" is indeed a counter-intuitive concept. But when you assemble the scrambled pieces of the Quantum puzzle, including the "Observer Effect", the whole picture will begin to make sense. The books you referred to will help you to accept the reification of Information. But, if you don't have time to peruse them all, I have reviews of several of them on my blog.
Although Enformationism posits that a First Cause is logically necessary, to light the fuse of the Big Bang, it does not imply any particular religious interpretation. That Creative Enformer remains beyond the reach of empirical science, because it is literally out-of-this-world. However, I am willing to label my worldview as Deistic, and specifically as PanEnDeistic. That's a philosophical position, not a religion. :cool:
It From Bit :
[i]In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Somewhat of a tangent from the OP, but the psychology of information theory could come around and connect with consciousness again, so I think it's worth pursuing in this thread. Its Conscious Electromagnetic "Information" theory after all, so let's talk about information!
Quoting Gnomon
Three overlapping concerns I see with information theory:
a. Its existential impact
b. Its effect on social dynamics
c. Its implications for what can be intuitively modeled
As for a., I think your quote from Wheeler clarifies the main idea nicely: this is a "participatory" universe, meaning that its form is determined by the properties of human interaction with it, amounting to technologies and theories generalizable as various mediums of information. So information underpins our modern image of the cosmos, the most philosophically profound factor amongst existence as we know it.
But "it from bit", which he claims as reduction to a "yes and no" interrogation of existence seems manifestly superficial and even pernicious. The closest corrolary to a yes or no ethic in modern culture is reality tv elimination shows, which give not a thought to the real well-being of individual participants and viewers alike, let alone the long-term prospects of humankind. This is symptomatic of a general trend in which culture channels human agency, especially adult motivation, into a preset range of choices requiring barely any innovation, a virtual reality where almost all decisions are made for you, by organizers who are working at a frantic pace that allows for minimal reflection.
A philosophy of information such as that of committed innovators such as yourself who include a personalized dimension is deep, thought provoking, socialized enough, but the ethic of information consumption evolving out of information science's vision and implementation is like a cage for the intellect, albeit adorned with marginally appealing bells and whistles which are of course only accessible to a limited range of demographics in extremely restricted ways. And this almost sugar coats it with generalization: the situation is dire, a society where citizens are forced into narrow participation brackets and then frequently forced to fail. Restricted participation is of course a constant throughout history, but modern society tries to bewitch with egalitarian ideals that most leadership has not intended to actualize in half a century while summarily flunking millions of citizens out of the economy, and it doesn't work, as all the growing discontents of society make quite obvious.
It's as if academics tried to create a prison of information for the average citizen and unleashed a tide of disgruntlement that can't be held back by the harshest of first world authoritarianisms presently possible. But information theory helps actualize you specifically, so how did you make it damn near work where the majority fails miserably?
As for b., these are excerpts from a discussion about the social effects of information that I had at this forum:
@Enrique
@kudos
@Enrique
@kudos
@Enrique
How is a philosophy of information theory going to be integrated into cultural evolution as the predominant paradigm while meeting these challenges? Perhaps you can give this some informed thought.
As for c., I find it conceivable that if every academic model must accord with a philosophy of information theory, the paradigm could become as problematic as physicalism and its discontents which are endlessly enumerated at this forum, with defunding of not only the humanities but every noncomputational approach to modeling in even the hard sciences. We will be inundated with huge amounts of data that only a computer is really capable of processing, and imaginative insights of a type of thinking like Einstein's, built from the periodic, cumulative ruminations of an entire lifetime, could become impossible.
McFadden's CEMI theory was originally called CEM theory, first formulated in the early 2000's as he pondered physicist Penrose's initial attempts at a quantum theory of consciousness. CEMI theory has made minimal impact and he doesn't even work on it for a salary, probably because it can't be modeled yet using computation, but each new paper he comes out with makes it even more certain that these are THE first steps in explaining human will from a neuroscientific perspective and approaching the binding problem of consciousness.
If scientists had've been performing gedanken experiments like Einstein's immediately when CEM came out, we would probably have deep brain EEG and related technologies at this stage, but no one cared because information theory has begun to make every scientific idea that doesn't involve a data set irrelevant. If all scientists are doing is programming and calculating, consciousness and many additional domains may never be conclusively theorized, and if no one has the existential or socially instilled compulsion to perform qualitative thought experiments, information theory might be the end of the line for radically new paradigms that aren't initiated by a sentient computer.
What to do about all of this?
As I see it, the existential impact of 21st century Science is 1> to reopen the God-question, that was a closed book since the Enlightenment rejection of biblical authority, 2> to reassess the role of Consciousness in a world of thinking machines, and 3> to undermine the classical physics of Atomism & Materialism. First, the Big Bang theory slammed the door on assumptions of a self-existent world, with no role for a Creator. Then, Information theory called into question the role of humanity as the dominant thinkers of the world. And finally, the replacement of material particles with ethereal Quantum Fields, as the fundamental substance of Reality, pulls the rug from under the classical Physical paradigm of "what you see is all there is".
I'm not sure what you mean by "it from bit" reduces existence to "yes or no". In my view, it expands the 21st century paradigm of science to include all-of-the-above. By that I mean, shape-shifting Information (Potential) is the essence of Matter & Mind & Energy. It's both Physical (Matter, Energy) and Meta-Physical (Mind). In what sense is the notion that real Matter (IT) is derived from essential Information (BIT), "superficial and pernicious"? It may be harmful to outdated scientific paradigms, but it should be beneficial for constructing new models of Reality. For many of us, nineteenth century Materialism is much more appealing to common-sense. But, philosophers & scientists need to go beyond common-knowledge. and learn to adapt their Darwinian ape-sense to fit the counter-intuitive "facts" of post-Quantum science. :smile:
Quoting Enrique
I have given it some considerable thought. And my Enformationism website was a first step in the direction of constructing a new paradigm upon the ashes of the old. But I'm not the only one involved in this Copernican Revolution. The webpage and the blog have links to many books and organizations that are on the forefront of this emerging worldview. However, I don't expect my puny personal efforts to have much impact on cultural evolution. Only if & when these new ideas catch-on among philosophers and scientists though, will it have a chance for widespread effects around the world.
Enformationism website :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Quoting Enrique
First educate yourself. Then spread the word. Then do what you can do. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is an abstruse intellectual worldview, and it will take time for it to trickle-down, so to speak, to the common folk. And I don't expect to live to see Materialsm and Spiritualism replaced by Enformationism. :cool: .
I was being unfair to Wheeler's approach in judging an individual paragraph, just giving you a provocative perspective with some grains of truth to analyze. I'm sure his views are subtle and well-developed, but it seems these ideas are not working because most citizens don't have access to them, they are intellectually difficult, and information theory's positivism has thus far gone in a dystopian direction. Perhaps it is as you suggest, the growing pains of a society trying to emerge from decadent materialism and craft a new, theoretically coherent worldview.
That science has a role in addressing the significance for humanity of what we call God is an interesting proposal. I think advancing science can acquire the ability to address the traditional "life force populated by spiritual beings" concept from a theoretical angle, determining in a more systematic, explicit way what is and is not illusion. This will involve a reconstituted model of what matter is and does combined with a theory of how consciousness arises in conjunction with this matter. I agree with you that matter and mind arise from the same basic substance and knowledge in these domains is mutually reinforcing: they expand together. I am looking forward to consciousness being well understood academically, with humans educated into truly appreciating and actualizing the vast variety in possible forms of experience.
Here's a blog post to address the notion of "The God of Science", from the perspective of the Enformationism thesis. :smile:
The G*D of Science :
Eternal External Causal Agent
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page29.html
Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Quoting Enrique
in my thesis that fundamental Substance is more like Energy than Matter. And it's equivalent to Aristotle's definition of abstract "substance" (Ousia), which is what we now call "Essence" or "Potential". For Kant, it was "ding an sich". Those were all logical conjectures, to explain the emergence of new forms from old fhings.
But now we have empirical evidence for the transformation of Energy into Matter and vice-versa. However, Energy is typically labeled "physical" because it can be measured in terms of its effects on matter. Yet, scientists still can't say exactly what Energy IS, essentially. What is energy made of?
So my definition places Energy under the heading of Meta-Physics. because we can never directly know the ding an sich. And even Energy is categorized under the General label of EnFormAction -- the power to Enform, to Cause, to Create. They all "expand" (evolve) together as a single monistic Substance. :nerd:
A sufficient explanation? No. Essentially just pointing at things, not to be rude.
I don't get that jazzed about theological topics beyond their role in leading me to question what I know. If God created the universe, then that universe was something, and if God was the only something that existed before the universe, then the universe was created out of him, and if God was not the only thing that existed but he created the universe, both God and the raw material of the universe were SOMETHING lol Ex nihilo is an incoherent concept in my opinion. I know some get into the "rich" symbolic undertones of religion, but I'm pragmatic and not much mystical (though like most I do get inspired), so not what I think about.
I know spiritual beings exist and are all a part of our universe at least by some kind of association. When I think about the spiritually transcendent facet of substance, I want to know its composition, the nature of beings that embody it, and its practical relevance for my life. I instinctually gravitate towards the concept of God I was brought up with, and that's how I relate to the spiritual absent theoretical knowledge, but I think science can reveal a vast spiritual ecosystem residing beyond sense-perception, and in no more than a century or so consciousness research will have expanded past brain and physiology to encompass spiritual substance in the environment generally, God willing. Can humanity avoid the destruction of progressive civilization and get to that point? I'll let the agencies, politicians and their fans figure it out, I just want to understand consciousness.
Me too. When I first started investigating the ubiquitous role of Information in the world, I tried to avoid using the "G" word to describe the logically necessary Enformer behind the Big Bang beginning. But, eventually I gave in to the fact that most cultures are generally agreed on a few essential properties of their "god" models, even as they diverge on specifics : primarily creation of the world, or Ground of Being. And philosophical deities -- such as Brahma, Tao, and Great Spirit -- are more like intellectual Principles than humanoid supermen.
So, I chose to spell the word "G*D" to indicate that it means something different to me, than to most religious believers. The primary distinction is that we no longer need to posit an intervening (meddling) deity to explain most mysteries of Reality. Modern science has provided more likely explanations of cause & effect. However, the First Cause remains unresolved by any of the natural forces in the universe.
On the other hand, what the ancients called "Nature Spirits", causing things to move and change, is better understood as the work of invisible Energy. But, the Enformationism thesis notes that the combination of Quantum and Information theories have concluded that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, and Energy is a causal form of Information. Or as I spell it : EnFormAction --- the power to cause change in form.
Another remaining unresolved question is how to explain the apparent direction of Evolution, from simple things to complex organisms, and from dumb rocks to smart-*ss humans. Where some scientists emphasize the role of Randomness in natural changes, I see that Natural Selection plays the role of preset Criteria (conditions ; values) in a program. So, I can't deny the inference of Intention that was imparted to the space-time world in the Initial Conditions. That's why I conclude that the Enformer was equivalent to a Programmer, who creates a plan with built-in Logic, and an ultimate goal or problem to solve.
Since I have no way of knowing the Mind of G*D, I don't presume to understand the Whys of Creation, or the Final Cause of evolution. Consequently, I have no reason to fear or worship that Ultimate Principle, as-if it was an emotionally volatile human personality. Besides, the creeds and rituals of most Religions are addressed primarily to human Passions (Desires & Fears), not to their evidence-based Reason. That's why Enformationism is not a religious theology, but a philosophical worldview. :smile:
I'll run an unusual idea by you and find out what you think.
What if a being exists that doesn't have a material body like humans, but can be anywhere and, from our perspective, manipulate anything within its perceptual field at any moment with effective simultaneity, essentially experiencing everything as inside of it, so that it has no need for a technical concept of time, only concentration, form, feeling, perhaps some kind of pressure, via an interaction as intuitively effortless as the way nervous systems move our extremities. Because it is omnipresently aware, it has no need to learn in a way comparable to humanity's and certainly no need to write.
Such a being would be atechnological, having no functions comparable to our incremental and mathematical conception with its inanimately modular components. It would be almost pure awareness, and this awareness might not be analogous to humanity's in many ways, a mode of experiencing that is not information-theoretic. Seems to me that the possibility of such a being, including in my experience real evidence it exists, reduces the expectation of an information theory and consciousness theory synthesis. And this being would be extremely powerful, so that as consciousness theory advances we might have to increasingly come to terms with a dimension of existence residing beyond the purview of information.
Perhaps materialism, especially its incarnation as consumerist capitalism, has already resulted in a distortion of the human relationship to such an experiential dimension, and a lack of respect for transcendent will of this type along with the implications for our orientation to nature and fellow human beings is causing many of civilization's recent problems: unnecessary war, destruction of the environment, degeneration of mental health, injustice, arrogance, recklessness, etc.
How is an infocentric, technocultural paradigm going to approach this in the advent that it proves vital to constructing an accurate model of the world and perhaps humanity's prospects?
In general, that sounds like a description of an ineffable god : immaterial, eternal, infinite, omniscient, etc. And such reasoning is how I came to conclude that a non-dimensional (un-measurable) Cosmic Enformer is necessary to explain why & how our 3D universe suddenly emerged from nowhere. That Creative Principle is indeed beyond the purview of our physical Science, but not inaccessible to philosophical reasoning. As a Meta-Physical (outside the contingent universe) entity, the Creator can only be understood in terms of Generic Information. :nerd:
Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all real things from a formless pool of possibility : the Ideal Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
G*D :
[i]An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Quoting Enrique
I suppose the next few generations will use the Information Paradigm in the same way humans have always incorporated a novel technical worldview : by making a Religion out of it. It seems to be human nature to worship or fear whatever is beyond common understanding. So, I'm not making any prophecies or promises. :smile:
I'm not much of a propheteer either lol I'll just say I think specialized AI, algorithms programmed for specific analytical tasks, are an invaluable tool, but I'm quite frankly afraid of generalized AI, virtual organisms capable of making our networks crash and sabotaging online identities, who we have to constantly negotiate with and perhaps eventually wage war against. Once that Pandora's box is opened, who knows what could happen. Hopefully our programming ethics are up to the challenge, or information theory will be a Biblical paradigm of weeping and gnashing of teeth, trying in vain to throw computers out the window. Might have to punish writing some generalized AI programs with 20 years in prison, similar to Australia's invasive species laws.
I had read Johnjoe McFadden's book, Quantum Information, several years ago. So, I was vaguely aware of CEMI before I came across this thread. However, I just found a PDF of an article by JJMcF, that I had set-aside on my PC desktop a few years ago. So, now I am better able to comment on his "CEMI theory", and on your "Coherence Field" concept. Both seem to be correlates of Tononi's "IIT theory", and assume that an essential feature of Consciousness is "coherence", unity, integration, feedback loops, interconnection, synchronicity, wholeness, and Monism. (i.e. single-mindedness).
So, we all seem to be on the same track for discovering, not just correlates-of-consciousness, but the essence-of-awareness (EOA). McFadden goes one step beyond neuronal rhythms to the EM field generated by the symphony of synapses. Tononi postulated that some kind of measuring device, a PHI meter, could verify the presence of awareness in a brain. And McFadden implies that something like a hospital EEG machine would detect Consciousness, if we knew how to interpret the signals. Likewise, Rupert Sheldrake theorized that Biological Life is characterized by a Morphogenetic (form creating) Field. Some quantum theorists assume that the Quantum Field is the fundamental Reality. Other researchers believe that all of those unifying physical fields are ultimately expressions of a universal meta-physical Mathematical Field. And that is getting closer to my personal postulation of an immaterial "Information Field", that I call Enformy or EnFormAction.
Unfortunately, a mental field is (currently) only detectable by a conscious Mind, not by a machine. So, Consciousness may never be as simple to verify as running an EEG or an MRI. I don't doubt that we can gain a deeper understanding of the mental feedback loop we call "Consciousness" by focusing on the Correlates our instruments reveal. Which may be one reason why direct Mind-Reading has been a Holy Grail for millennia. Yet, in the article linked below, JJMcF answers the question : Can the cemi theory account for telepathy? with "No, I’m afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it", :nerd:
The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (cemi) Field Theory :
"[i]However, all electrical circuits – and that’s basically all neurones -- generate an associated
energy field, known as an electromagnetic field or em field. This field contains precisely the
same information as the circuitry that generated it."
"our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop"
"time: we can only have one idea in our head at a time."
"a single unified idea, or gestalt,"
"My hypothesis is that consciousness is the experience of information, from the inside."
"we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will."[/i]
https://johnjoemcfadden.co.uk/popular-science/consciousness/
Physical Fields as mental constructs :
https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-treat-electric-field-in-that-case-any-field-as-a-physical-entity-rather-than-a-mathematical-construct
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193281/does-a-field-have-any-physical-meaning-or-significance
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/
The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
In the article noted in my previous post, McFadden says : "Consciousness is a product of evolution and, as such, it has a role to play in our survival. What is that role? The most obvious answer may be the right one – we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will". Since human C evolved by the trial & error process of Evolution, perhaps Evolutionary Algorithms are our best bet for cultivating Awareness in artificial Minds.
But, if our AI/Robots someday become sentient, we'll be forced to treat them as equals, instead of slaves. And we'll have just as much reason to fear them, as we now fear our human peers. Hopefully, they will not be as omnipotent as apocalyptic movies portray. Maybe they will be just as conflicted & uncertain as their freewill-faking flesh & phlegm forebears. :joke:
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Electron distribution amongst a specific atom or atoms and the consequent EM field can be an effectively unified domain of integrated causality from the perspective of consciousness, what he must mean by saying a particularate "circuit" and its field contain the same information.
McFadden suggests that EM fields located throughout the brain, which are generated by the electric charges of highly concentrated ion flow, cause phase locking between neurons via some still unknown mechanism of sensitivity that the molecular structures of voltage gated ion channels mediate. Labs have demonstrated phase locking with neurons in vitro, and the tiniest neurons contain thousands of ion channels, making this mechanism universal within the brain. EM fields appear capable of evoking a measurable response in even individual channels, modulating action potential synchronicity by minutely organized perturbations.
What McFadden talks about most is a hypothetical case where EM field/ion channel phase locking saturates throughout the domain of relatively large neural networks. This is a phenomenon he postulates as responsible for the binding effect characteristic of fully aware consciousness and resulting in intentional acts. He calls these saturating, large-scale EM fields "CEMI" fields, and claims that they are willed agency.
This probably accounts for the basic substrate of intentional consciousness, and I've been thinking some about how and where these CEMI fields might be instantiated anatomically. It still doesn't explain the "what it is like to be" aspect of experience, why this willing looks, feels, is sensed as a seemingly intangible percept or thought.
Research suggests that ions travel through the membrane channels of neurons as a wave, presumably via a mechanism of quantum tunneling which enables this process to match rapid rates such as those of enzyme catalysis and photosynthetic reaction centers, where quantum mechanisms have been proven to obtain. So I'm fairly certain ion channels must have substantial quantum properties involved in phase locking with fields.
If it is assumed in general that field/molecular binding occurs via quantum properties, this leads to concepts like entanglement, coherence and superposition. So far entanglement has only been shown to occur within small molecules and between no more than a few molecules, though this might change somewhat as research progresses. Anyways, entanglement between molecules isn't a good candidate at this point for the mechanism that binds matter into percepts.
By contrast, EM radiation, the photonic waves traveling at 300 million meters per second, effectively instantaneous within the brain, can likely entangle with relatively large quantities of atoms as a possible binding agent. Not only this, but wavelengths of EM radiation easily superposition, for instance as the visible spectrum. My hypothesis is that waves of EM radiation in the brain (centered at relatively low frequency as induced by charged currents) not only superposition with themselves but also with molecular arrays such as biochemical pathways, and this could be the source of subjective color/feel/resonance, a complex blending of atoms and radiation that is the "what it is like to be" of experience.
Unlike EM field/ion channel binding that is amplified by neuronal synchronicity, the intensity of EM radiation spreading from its source atoms in the brain diminishes quickly, so percepts (qualia) don't in and of themselves form a large-scale perceptual field. But the radiative binding mechanism of superposition amongst entanglement may still manage to influence thousands upon thousands of atoms or molecules as an individual unit, and this is enough to produce percepts. These percepts could then be orchestrated by the hypersynchronized neurons and neural networks that McFadden has proposed to manifest as stable, seemingly unified (but also particularized) "what it is like to be" fields of sight, sound, scent, thought, etc.
Presumably the subtle impression that percepts are located at places remote from the brain must be related to quantum or quantumlike mechanisms.
What I've discussed so far seems to be based on electromagnetism. My hypothesis is that nonelectromagnetic fields exist which are closer in structure to radiation than atoms, still invisible to our scientific instruments, more nonlocal while synchronizing, entangling and superpositioning into the brain and body by similar mechanisms. These complexes of known and unknown matter/energy, electromagnetic and nonelectromagnetic fields, ranging from the extremely local to the most nonlocal, I call "coherence fields", named after quantum coherence or large-scale entanglement/synchronicity.
Consciousness explained?
By the way, I gave that book by Deacon a look, seems epic! My first impression is that his concept of absentia simply refers to the predictive capabilities in different arrays of matter and won't provide a unified framework of formal/final causality, but he could have evidence that disproves my intuitions. No doubt an awesome read!
Low arousal, unconscious EM fields throughout the brain can draw or be absorbed into full attention while high arousal, CEMI field activation roves and alternates between all kinds of stimuli, sensations, memories, behaviors, etc. Repression is simply the encoding of experiences into low arousal phase locked domains, more likely to impact high arousal during specific kinds of stimulation such as free association, prolonged self-expression and mind wandering, or when an individual is shocked into ultra-attentiveness by widely distributed unconscious activation as in flashbacks.
I'm unable to think of any textbook psychology that can't be accounted for by this model. It explains radical integration of the psyche's modularity, how it can fracture or maintain low arousal while sustaining a baseline of broadly inclusive awareness.
Electro-Magnetism is just one of many ghostly field theories : e.g. Classical, Quantum, Statistical, Gravitational. So what qualifies photon or electron dynamics to produce Consciousness? Do they have some Mental Property that is expressed as Awareness and Self-Consiousness only a high levels of complexity and concentration? Is that latent power a physical or meta-physical property? The inherent "mental property" in physics is what I call "EnFormAction" (causal Information). :chin:
Quoting Enrique
I was impressed by Deacon's insights & explanations, and have incorporated some of his ideas & analogies in my blog posts. For example, I refer to Causation in the real world (Energy) as a product of the "power to create novelty". Which is what I also call EnFormAction. :smile:
The Causal Power of Absence :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
What Is The Power of Absence? :
[i]Deacon says that Absence is “a defining property of life and mind”. Like the nameless Tao, it’s a way, not a wayfarer, it’s a channel, not the flowing water.
The notion of efficacious Absence is counter-intuitive, so it requires a lot of explanation and examples : Absence is like the emptiness of a cup that is able to contain & constrain coffee for the purpose of drinking. Potential is not real, but the power to realize.
Absence is like the “Strange Attractors” of physics, that act as-if they had a gravitational pull to cause things to move toward an empty point in space. By analogy with the physical law of Thermodynamics, think of it as Cold, the absence of Heat.[/i]
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
The Ghost in the Organism :
he developed a theory of "Autogens" to explain how Life and Mind could emerge from lifeless & mindless matter, without any divine intervention.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html
I didn't realize the question of whether or not a field is physical remains contested by some of the most accomplished Ph.d's in the world! The way I see it based on resources you supplied and my own study is that "fields" are a mathematical construct representing a substance which likewise fills (exacts direct force upon) the entirety of space, but the particular details as far as we can image them are a translation of this supradimensional substance into an approximating function plotted on a more or less uniform coordinate plane, so the way the field appears in terms of logic is abstraction.
We can model fields as an array of wave peaks, or in the case of atomic orbitals as spheres, donuts, dumbells surrounding the nucleus, but these are images of statistical probability, not the substances themselves. Mathematical functions approximately model certain portions of the spectrum of physical substance, and the geometrical shapes we produce from them are even more of an abstraction.
If we could arrange all the functions together in an accurate holistic equation, this would be a complete model of matter as we know it, perhaps with gaps in precision where some dynamic has not yet been fully explained, but if we tried to plot it on a coordinate plane it would not look like anything intelligible. I watched a prestigious lecture about physics on youtube that displayed such a hybrid expression for matter as we thus far know it, including QED, nuclear chromodynamics, the Higgs mechanism etc., but it wasn't amenable to a coordinate system.
As suggested on multiple occasions at the pages you supplied, the math is a description superimposed on substances we cannot easily if at all visualize as logical structure. But specialized AI can be programmed with the necessary set of intuitions for performing the task!
I think the view that these mathematical constructs are information arises from a holistic, systems perspective, where everything that exists within a given substance/"field" is interconnected. The integrated causality involved can be thought of as essentially a transfer of quantitative information, but in my opinion this is a metaphor. It's not that substance literally reduces to 1's and 0's, it's that this is the most efficient way to logically think about it for technical purposes: an anthrocentric, human-friendly veneer we call a philosophical/cultural paradigm to make sense of the reality which can be overwhelming in its complexity. But that's merely my personal perspective.
Seems you are very generally in concord with my outlook, but express it in a context where all of these conceived ideas as causal principles actually exist in some sense rather than being artifacts of tangible substance. So where you say "generic information", I would say "unknown raw substance", and where you say "EnFormAction", I would say "the impetus intrinsic to substance". You express reality in terms of philosophical principles, me in terms of embodied entities, but we're basically asserting the same notions.
The inquiry into how interconnected and holistic reality is proves interesting, the extent to which an information-theoretic paradigm is explanatory. Do fundamental disjunctions exist within the distribution of substance such that total synchrony is largely an illusion, or does existence evince unity of direction, an overarching telos? A related question is how universally the concept of purpose can be plausibly applied. I think determining the extent to which your Enformationism thesis holds true depends on new instrumentation and further experiments with entanglement/coherence that will reveal how integrated the universe and our human sphere of action actually is.
Quoting Gnomon
All that's distinctive about electromagnetism is it's the facet of substance which our sense organs are most adapted for and thus what technologies and related theoretical models are attuned to as appendages of these sense organs, especially vision. Electromagnetic matter/radiation is a fractional aspect of mind, but the most salient, with consciousness deeply rooted in the hypersensory/metaphysical. Looking at it from my realist perspective, I think organic bodies are probably infused with nonelectromagnetic substances that instrumentation has not yet been designed to register.
Quoting Gnomon
I also think phenomena akin to a morphogenetic field exist, likely responsible for at least some aspects of evolution, quantumlike entanglement/coherence, and perceptual properties of superposition between wavelengths, wavicles etc. My hypothesis is that it is intrinsic of superpositioned matter to feel in a fragmentary, almost inanimate way, and amalgamations of "feeling" substance are the source of relatively nondimensional sensations and experiences.
Quoting Gnomon
Absence as causal factor is a powerful idea.
With chemistry, to the extent it is what we consider inanimate, thermodynamics is very much a phenomenon of matter moving from high to low concentration, becoming equilibrated or on average maximally entropic. But during much longer periods and in less constrained conditions than those of a laboratory experiment, increasing entropy is coupled to pockets of increasing negentropy that can expand and come to reconstitute the entire system as they have on Earth, driving evolution, an effect which advanced lifeforms or technological civilizations are hypothetically capable of exacting on all of reality. So I think it is still uncertain whether existence is fundamentally driven by entropy or negentropy. Your Enformationism thought experiment supports the possibility of a fundamentally negentropic reality, which our knowledge cannot yet prove or disprove.
In relatively simple organisms, absence drives much of behavior as a sensing of various privations. Relatedly, the hominid lineage's tendency to explore while foraging for scarce, diverse or new food sources probably contributed to the evolution of curiosity and ingenuity. This eventually translated into facility with toolmaking and cultural/mythmaking creativity. As the human psyche developed in this innovation-centric environment, the experience of privation was enriched into complex motivations: anguish, exhilaration, inspiration etc., in essence spirituality. In the sedentary lifestyle of civilized settings, the drive to explore sublimated towards a desire to exercise oneself intellectually, resulting in accelerated advancement of knowledge and a culture based around education, bringing us to the Information Age! Perhaps a psychical sense of absence explains some of the more recent social dynamics we have been seeing?
Even God or the gods who are HUGE and eternal could feel privation at the loss of terrestrial organisms and thus be responsive to human mortality, probably why they would care about lower lifeforms such as us at all. If my quantum feeling hypothesis is accurate, God must have unfathomably gargantuan and nuanced feelings!
Merely a presumption on my part lol
Those phd's do indeed treat their mathematical fields as-if they are real. But they are "physical" only in the sense that physicists use those statistical models to predict physical behavior. But the ideal points that represent particles are mathematically defined, not detected empirically. So, those hypothetical fields are not "contested" any more than "virtual particles" are contested. But, if you will Google "are quantum fields real?" you will see that some thinkers still worry that ideal "mental constructs", while theoretically useful, are not actually real things, hence un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers tend to have different standards for what is Real (material), and what is Ideal (mental).. :nerd:
Fields are an excellent model for a large number of phenomena, and provide excellent predictive power. However, models don't equate to reality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47q8uf/are_fields_real_or_just_a_mathematical_tool/
Fields are virtual mathematical models within another mathematical model :
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of
Quoting Enrique
Is that "infusion" another kind of physical field or a "nonelectromagnetic" mental "field"? Mental (mathematical) fields can't be detected with EM instruments. But they can be inferred by rational methods. BTW, if the EM field of a brain constitutes the mind, according to CEMI theory, does the EM field of the heart also produce a mind? Some fringe scientists believe so, and propose heart-brain coherence as a therapy. That may be possible, but it's not a mainstream idea. :cool:
. With an electrical component about 60 times greater and an electromagnetic energy field 5000 times greater than the brain’s, the heart has a significant influence on the body down to the cellular level.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/building-the-habit-hero/202011/the-hearts-electromagnetic-field-is-your-superpower
Quoting Enrique
The general notion of a morphogenetic field (MGF) makes sense to me. But, like other Mental fields, it remains undetectable by conventional electromagnetic methods. For my philosophical purposes, I simply place the MGF under the broad heading of an Information Field : not physically detectable, but rationally inferable. However, I don't mean that Reason is a form of ESP, in a paranormal sense.. :wink:
Quoting Enrique
I agree. :smile:
What Is The Power of Absence? :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
I think fields are both physical and mathematical, but the math is an idealization. Underlying substance, though it extends throughout the entire domain of the mathematical field in some form, does not exactly match geometry as represented in any coordinate system we have thus far constructed. A sense for the supradimensional geometry might be implementable in a specialized AI program once QFT math and related experimental designs have advanced enough.
Quoting Gnomon
It depends on the composition peculiar to that organ. Density and diversity of neuron types are much less in the heart, so phase locking between its large nerves and the correspondingly stronger EM field will not be as saturating. If anything like mind is going on, it will be much more unconscious than the brain, closer to dispersed EM fields than a CEMI field on the consciousness spectrum. But as you referenced, these are powerful EM fields, so for many individuals it may be a more than insensibly subtle constituent in the experience of our own willing.
I think because of extremely fast reaction rates in the body, many if not most biochemical pathways are actually miniature quantum machines, with their internal arrangements fixed in place and substantially buffered from the general thermodynamic entropy of cellular solution by cytoskeletal fibers and membrane organization such that these processes are primarily driven by phenomena like wavicle tunneling through entangled structures, essentially microscopic coherence fields.
If my hypothesis is correct, these entanglement distributions superposition with EM radiation emitted by molecules such that a wide assortment of feelings at the very least are produced in almost all tissues. Physically nonelectromagnetic, so-called morphogenetic fields are presumably infused into the body so that feelings and additional experiences are caused by relatively nonlocal mechanisms as well.
Perhaps EM field/ion channel phase locking in the heart, though not integrated enough to be high arousal consciousness, generates strong semiconscious effects in many human beings, and these powerful unconscious forces combined with nonlocal causation give those who are especially attuned the impression that the heart is closely linked with a morphogenetic "soul". Discerning the degree to which this is physical, a social construct and/or a cognitively induced illusion depends on further developments in quantum biology and physics generally.
Supposedly, less axial resistance (lengthwise along the neuron) by way of more sizable neuron diameter increases the rate at which electrical potential flows. This is not however, due to greater diffusion of ions, but rather from closer internode spacing and thus a higher capacity for the voltage-gated ion channels of nodes to register rapidly radiating transitions in electromagnetic field strength via charge-carrying ions despite more diffuse ion concentrations amongst larger intracellular volumes. In essence, a relatively constant presence of voltage gradient in various forms creates a steady electromagnetic field, so that electrical potentials in neurons are more a fluctuation in the field than particle flow.
Local field potentials (LFPs), which are fluctuations in steady state electromagnetic fields, have been observed with electrodes placed in the space between multiple neurons. So-called “extracellular space” (including cells and their medium) involves a complex arrangement of membranes along with associated voltage gradients, and axons, dendrites, dendritic spines, soma, glia, etc. are subcomponents of this overall system, with an axonic action potential for instance measured as perturbing steady state LFPs rather than generating and then extinguishing them.
The significance is that it may be more accurate to think of the nervous system and especially the brain as consisting in perturbations of an electromagnetic field that is in constant supervenience with the organ’s material structure, rather than a phenomenon of neuronal “wiring”, and this lends substantial support to an EM field theory of consciousness. Most of the brain may not amount to electrical transmission, but instead be comprised of EM field fluctuations synchronizing biochemical pathways that are perhaps bound into percepts by entanglement and additive superposition with EM radiation, as per CEMI and coherence field theory.