A short theory of consciousness
Below is an extract from my theory of consciousness. The whole theory can be read here. It tackles the hard problem, so you might find it interesting. Any comments would be appreciated.
[b]An instance of consciousness:
?
1: Senses input information
2: Information is integrated to reason
3: Reason is experienced
4: Experience is translated to emotion
5: Emotion is translated to a feeling
6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)[/b]
This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells you what this instance of consciousness means for you.
At this point, the reason is understood by the whole body; whole body consciousness understands this language, whereas only your brain understands reason.
Your next step is guided by the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum. - The whole body is in agreement now - this is reality.
If it feels good – you continue
If it feels bad – you think again, or initiate a plan of action to avert the potential pain.
At the extreme end beyond pain is death ( zero point energy ), whilst pleasure is associated with life
The PPS provides impetus to behaviour. It determines the next state of consciousness, this continues throughout the day in a causal chain, where the PPS is constantly being queried, and appeased. The PPS governs the emotional / rational mix of the response. If the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum, is at an extreme end , the result is a more emotional response, if it is neutral the result is a more reasoned response
From the biological / cellular perspective, we simply feel pain or pleasure at the site, significantly what we feel is a gradient of pain or pleasure, and this dominates consciousness, no reason is necessary, and this gets attended to reflexively as a priority.
As consciousness evolved it had no choice but to self organise in terms of this primordial emotional gradient ( PPS ). It had to build on what already existed, as what existed was already a well developed system of self organisation ( consciousness ). Animal life arose about 1 billion years ago, some 2.8 billion years after microbial life. At no point could a reasonable consciousness simply pop into existence – initially it would have been a weakly reasonable system, so it had to evolve onto the existing non reasonable but highly effective system.
I don’t mean to give the impression that consciousness is a simple linear process. It is capable of multi modality - background awareness, focus and multi focus, disassociation, integrity, fragmentation, fluctuation and errors . Nothing is absolutely impossible in the mind!. I also expect, that if the variety of human consciousness could be graphed, it would be a bell shaped curve where most people would be in the middle, but the spread would be quite wide. Some people feel very little pain, whist others feel the slightest pain. The way a PPS is formed varies, but that one exists, I believe, doesn’t.
?
The PPS was deduced through an exploration of consciousness as articulated by qualia - I think it is quite enlightening:
[b]The qualia of life is consciousness
The qualia of consciousness are experiences.
The qualia of experiences are emotions.
The qualia of emotions are feelings.
The qualia of feelings are points on the PPS
The qualia of points on the PPS are death - pain / pleasure - life.
The qualia of life is consciousness – this completes the consciousness loop.
?
The qualia of death is unconsciousness
The qualia of unconsciousness is death[/b]
The hard problem:
Reason must be experienced – it must be translated to an emotional language and felt as the language consciousness was originally founded on, thus located on the PPS, and felt as either a pain or pleasure. Reason has implications, and implications are painful, neutral, or pleasurable.
The whole theory can be read here.
Any comments would be appreciated.
?
[b]An instance of consciousness:
?
1: Senses input information
2: Information is integrated to reason
3: Reason is experienced
4: Experience is translated to emotion
5: Emotion is translated to a feeling
6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)[/b]
This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells you what this instance of consciousness means for you.
At this point, the reason is understood by the whole body; whole body consciousness understands this language, whereas only your brain understands reason.
Your next step is guided by the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum. - The whole body is in agreement now - this is reality.
If it feels good – you continue
If it feels bad – you think again, or initiate a plan of action to avert the potential pain.
At the extreme end beyond pain is death ( zero point energy ), whilst pleasure is associated with life
The PPS provides impetus to behaviour. It determines the next state of consciousness, this continues throughout the day in a causal chain, where the PPS is constantly being queried, and appeased. The PPS governs the emotional / rational mix of the response. If the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum, is at an extreme end , the result is a more emotional response, if it is neutral the result is a more reasoned response
From the biological / cellular perspective, we simply feel pain or pleasure at the site, significantly what we feel is a gradient of pain or pleasure, and this dominates consciousness, no reason is necessary, and this gets attended to reflexively as a priority.
As consciousness evolved it had no choice but to self organise in terms of this primordial emotional gradient ( PPS ). It had to build on what already existed, as what existed was already a well developed system of self organisation ( consciousness ). Animal life arose about 1 billion years ago, some 2.8 billion years after microbial life. At no point could a reasonable consciousness simply pop into existence – initially it would have been a weakly reasonable system, so it had to evolve onto the existing non reasonable but highly effective system.
I don’t mean to give the impression that consciousness is a simple linear process. It is capable of multi modality - background awareness, focus and multi focus, disassociation, integrity, fragmentation, fluctuation and errors . Nothing is absolutely impossible in the mind!. I also expect, that if the variety of human consciousness could be graphed, it would be a bell shaped curve where most people would be in the middle, but the spread would be quite wide. Some people feel very little pain, whist others feel the slightest pain. The way a PPS is formed varies, but that one exists, I believe, doesn’t.
?
The PPS was deduced through an exploration of consciousness as articulated by qualia - I think it is quite enlightening:
[b]The qualia of life is consciousness
The qualia of consciousness are experiences.
The qualia of experiences are emotions.
The qualia of emotions are feelings.
The qualia of feelings are points on the PPS
The qualia of points on the PPS are death - pain / pleasure - life.
The qualia of life is consciousness – this completes the consciousness loop.
?
The qualia of death is unconsciousness
The qualia of unconsciousness is death[/b]
The hard problem:
Reason must be experienced – it must be translated to an emotional language and felt as the language consciousness was originally founded on, thus located on the PPS, and felt as either a pain or pleasure. Reason has implications, and implications are painful, neutral, or pleasurable.
The whole theory can be read here.
Any comments would be appreciated.
?
Comments (336)
I see no reason to believe such claims. Life is about survival. Survival entails appropriate reaction to the environment. At the most primitive level, it is stimulus-response. An amoeba reacts to primitive aspects of the environment: it senses the presence of nourishment and consumes it. This reflects biochemical reaction, not consciousness. More complex life-forms have more sophisticated sensory apparatus that enable more effective interaction with the environments. IMO, consciousness reflects a complex process for more optimal mediation between stimulus and response.
exactly - it senses the presence of something and reacts appropriately. How do you sense without consciousness?
Quoting Relativist
Of course there is biochemistry going on, just like in our own consciousness
Quoting Relativist
This is true but they all started with a simple consciousness, which evolved.Or are you saying consciousness is something that just pops into existence?
At what point can you say something becomes conscious? Where can you draw the line? I don't think you can - life and consciousness evolved together. The philosophical zombie argument tells us so - without consciousness it could not be alive. If this is true for a philosophical zombie - then it is also true for an amoeba.
Let's say you go on to donate blood. Your blood is then packed with appropriate preservatives and stored until needed or till the cells degenerate. The RBCs and WBCs present in the pack of the blood sense their immediate environment and reacts to maintain their internal homeostasis as long as they can (about a month for RBCs). Will you consider this pack of blood to be conscious?
Quoting Pop
How does a computer sense when I hit the space bar?
Chemical stimuli.
Quoting Pop
Consciousness is a vague term, aside from the fact that it reflects an aspect of human existence. It surely didn't "pop" into existence. Brains process input from sensory organs and through the nervous system, much of it autonomically. Consider a human body in a persistent vegitative state ("brain-dead") - incapable of consciousness. At least some autonomic brain function continues - and this function entails integrating input from the nervous system and reacting to it. Similarly, consciousness entails the integration of input - input from senses (e.g. the visual cortext processing visual input; auditory complex processing auditory input), plus memories - and integrating these. The brains of all complex animals engage in this integrative function. I think it's a stretch to call it "consciousness" at every step of the way - but at any rate, you'd need define exactly what you mean my the term - specify specific functionality.
Red blood cells are the only human cells that lack DNA, so not conscious . White blood cells however are a whole different story. They act independently in the body chasing down pathogens via a process of gradient tracking, as per this video:
Please note the multiple stages of information processing and action.
In this instance it is you who are hitting the space bar, and initiating a programmed mechanistic process.
Conscious creatures process information independently, and choose when to press their own buttons.
In order to do this there must exist an information processing system, no matter how primitive it may be.
It is thought AI will become conscious via programs that are self learning and programming.
All living creatures are self learning and programming - this is the issue that needs to be addressed!
This is the typical nonsensical cliched response - kindly articulate how chemical stimuli processes information?
There is information processing going on.
Consciousness is a process of self organisation relative to sense mediated information.
This is true for an amoeba, as well as a human being. The only thing that varies is the complexity of information sensed and processed, and the mechanism doing it ( consciousness ).
Quoting Relativist
As is stated in the theory that you skimmed: Consciousness is an evolving process of self organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state In humanity this is the fear of death, and I believe this evolved into the pain pleasure spectrum that I posit. Consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - this is evident in it's expression - life and all of life's activities being its expression.
All living creatures are self learning and programming - all living creatures are involved in a process of self organisation - always! For this to occur there must be an information processing system to facilitates this, and It must have always been present - otherwise how could they self learn, program, and self organise in the first place?
We are getting into abiogenisis now, and of the many theories posited,all ( except god), agree that self organisation led to life. This is where I get my definition of consciousness from. This and the observation that life is biased to resist zero point energy. I have tested this definition against all moments of life, for all creatures, that I can think of and concluded it works. All moments of life are a process of self organisation. In humanity these moments are described in the instance of consciousness in the OP.
Reason could not exist at the beginning of life, reason requires a brain, but emotional gradients could exist and may be the foundation of self organisation. By emotional, I do not mean emotional as we know it - I'm referring to a simple bias to be one way as apposed to another.
You previously mentioned an amoeba. A white blood cell is a very similar organism featured in the video above.It uses a gradient to track down pathogens. The process is described here
.
RBCs can sense their environment and respond accordingly, DNA does not play much role in it.
WBCs have to follow the gradient, it cannot choose whether or not to follow the gradient.
Again does this make the pack of blood conscious?
This is true, but there is a system of information processing going on that is independent to some extent. We also are constrained in our ability to choose - do we have complete free will?
The issue is not whether I think a pack of blood is conscious - The issue is what provides impetus to life?
Sorry i had something to attend to. I believe that is true - once we become aware of it, all the more so. Reason is still evolving and it may be more evolved in some people then others. In the case of the white blood cell, reason is not a possibility. Emotion may be a possibility as the impetus to behavior.
We are only aware of reason and emotion, as languages of consciousness. This dose not exclude other languages,in other organisms, but we do notice a response to painful stimuli even in the simplest of microbes.
I've tried to put things together so as to explain how emotion provides impetus to behavior.
The theory would seem to predict that we can have greater control of our emotions, and to some extent this would seem to collapse the theory, but we cannot override emotions totally, we would then become P.zombies, and fall to zero point energy. Whether we are already at an optimal mix of emotion and reason I don't know.
In eastern philosophy ( yogic logic ), happiness and joy is not dependent entirely on external events.
Having a knowledge of a pain / pleasure spectrum that may be malleable if not entirely controllable, could be a benefit to many, in many different ways.
When we talk about humans we tend to include experiencing....
1.perceive by a sense or senses.
then with machines we may means something like below
2.(of a machine or similar device) detect.
But these two are quite different in most people's estimation. The former, with perception, includes this idea of experiencing, the latter, a bit anthropomorphized, actually means something like affected by a stimulus as intended by the user/inventor.
Very nice! I did a quick skim over the theory and think this has a very sound basis. Consciousness is basically the part of us that manages other parts of the brain, and puts it all together. Its kind of like a gas pedal, break, and a steering wheel that sometimes likes to do its own thing.
Just a quick alternative look at emotions, I've always believed emotions are a digest, or quick summary of the mind's state that alerts the consciousness. Rationality is a tool that lets us take time to break down emotions into more cogent parts when we have time. As is often said, we are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.
Definitely look into neuroscience. Philosophies time in the sun on matters of mind is outdated and quickly becoming obsolete as we learn more.
Thanks for taking an interest, I think neuroscience is dong a great job of mapping the brain so I steered clear of computational aspects of consciousness, and concentrated on the hard problem.
What impressed me was that there are two languages of consciousness - emotion and reason, but only one consciousness. Why would a system of self organisation have two languages? The languages are non- miscible. One language cannot describe the other. I concluded that there are two systems at play.
The cellular / biological system, and the neural / computational system - both systems of self organisation, one internal, and the other external. An emotional gradient seems to link them.
When I think of reality - it is such a variable construct, but it seems to occur when emotion agrees with reason, and that would agree with my model, and this is the aspect of the theory that is most interesting to me.Quoting Philosophim
I agree absolutely, and have concluded that it would be impossible to orient oneself in one's reality with reason alone. With reason alone, every moment would require a theory of the moment, but with emotion one can cut right through this and arrive at a self interested emotional position that is real every time! :smile: And this is an absolutely essential ability to posses. :sad:
Research into gradients is still pretty edgy, but there have been some gradients identified in the cerebral cortex, and other ares of the brain, so If they turn out to be emotionally driven, this would validate my theory.
Emotions have evolved into a complicated thing. I imagine that If one could devolve emotion, to their original state one would find a simple bias - to be one way, and not another. At their simplest, they seem like something reminiscent of a magnetic force, and this seems to be an essential component in the making of biological machine.
Thank you again for contributing your thoughts! They are clear, concise, and seem sound.
I think it is philosophy's role to explore and introduce new ideas. I think it is easy to forget that the philosophers we quote and reference today were radicals in their time - with what must have seemed like crazy ideas, that upset the establishment. Thanks again
Dualism relies on emergence, but I can't see how a system can emerge and displace the already existing system of self organization. The way I have interpreted it is that the emergent system sits on top of the existing system, with an emotional gradient connecting them. You must have considered something like this? If so, what were your reasons for dismissing it?
I would recommend reading some of Lisa Feldman Barrett’s work on emotions in neuroscience/psychology. Her book ‘How Emotions Are Made’ is written as pop-science, but she’s also published academically - her theory of constructed emotion and the ‘concept cascade’, as well as her extensive meta-research from a neuroscience/psychology perspective may be informative for your own work here.
My website is very imperfect and is a constant 'work in progress' so to speak but thanks for reading it.
I should start by saying that I believe the absolute split of Monism and Dualism is dated, and I'm not at all alone in that. The terms go back to Descartes and there have been hundreds of years of query about consciousness since then, not to mention discoveries by neuroscience. Many different ontological positions have been shoved under these two umbrellas.
The reality is there are an array of different possible ontological positions on consciousness that could have something going for them in one way or another, some of these seem to crossover between or even shed all together the labels of Monism and Dualism.
The work on my website, and also in a paper I have written, primary focuses on the relationship between the mind and the behavior of matter in the brain. Specifically the implications of changes in behavior of brain matter due to the mind.
The primary reason I label myself a dualist is because I believe under the current list of ontological positions on the mind, the position property-dualist interactionism, where the mind and its features (such as Qualia) are causally relevant non-physical properties of the matter in the brain. provides I believe a useful way to model how things like Qualia exist in relation to brain matter, especially from an evolutionary perspective where a lot of my focus is.
I believe that when it comes to describing the ontological relationship between the mind and brain matter, we might always be doomed to finding the best model.
Models can be flawed but still useful, as has been shown in science quite often. I also believe that many implications drawn about consciousness using one model can be useful for people who subscribe to different models so long as some things are held in common.
Its happens one tiny small change at a time, similar to how evolution in general works. It does not simply leap from one system to another. After a large number of small changes, that build onto one another, big changes start to emerge.
Changes in the system of consciousness get carried over to future generations the same way other features of an organism do. If they provide survival benefit, the genes that correlated with them get passed on. If they hinder the organism, the genes get selected against.
Each evolutionary change in the conscious system must add some beneficial change in behavior to the system (in terms of its usefulness to the organisms survival), so it provides evolutionary advantage and the organism who posses it carries on its genes (and so on and so forth).
This is how we developed our conscious systems compared to the more primitive ones of our ancestors 50 million years ago. And you can scale this all the way back to the beginning of organisms.
Pain/Pleasure
Pain and Pleasure are extremely prominent features of the mind, especially as it relates to what is called will. There is certainly an important pain/pleasure gradient evolutionarily, as in how much pain/pleasure an organism were to experience for a certain stimuli will govern how it reacts to that stimuli. So is very relevant in terms of survival.
That being said, I don't believe all of consciousness can be reduced to variations and developments of a system of pain and pleasure.
What's interesting is that it is easy to theoretically develop an organism that has a system built into its brain where it will move away from things which damage it, and move towards things which advantage it (lets say give it energy, such as food.) You do not need phenomenal experiences of pain and pleasure to perform this task at all. For some reason, evolution found it better to do it with phenomenal experiences within humans and other mammals. I have my own theory as to why this is but I have written enough for now.
Thanks for taking a look.
My greatest frustration is articulating the ideas, and finding a balance between sufficient explanation and wide accessibility, which I don't feel i've achieved. I have condensed 90 pages into 9, and lost a lot of detail in the process which must make it sound a little glib and simple.
I will take another look at Lisa Fieldman Barrett, as you suggest, and see if I can interpret her understanding from my model. Thanks again.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Are you using WIX? If so we are probably using the same template. :smile:
I realized very early on, that a theory of consciousness was a bit of a losers game. New knowledge on the periphery of consciousness can be adjusted to in time, but new knowledge of consciousness itself is very challenging indeed. It occurred to me that a smart cookie would leave consciousness alone and pursue something else . But by the time I understood this, I was already hooked and determined to reach some sort of understanding - at least for myself.
You seem to have taken a more sensible approach, by spreading the risk, and understandably avoiding hard and fast conclusions. I have stuck my head out as I have confidence in the pain / pleasure spectrum ( and I have nothing to loose ), as being something reason bounces off all the time.
It occurred to me that this was a necessary aspect of reality orientation, and thus something consciousness was involved in all the time.
There is no way to evaluate two unrelated experiences other then as values on a common measure for qualitative information. Qualitative information is essential for reality orientation. Each experience is self contained, experienced only once, so unique and unrelated, To ascertain its quality we must compare it to other experiences, and the only way to do this is by assigning the experience a value on the PPS. Once the experience has a value, we can compare the experience to other experiences. From this process we orient ourselves in reality, via an emotional gradient.
A PPS value grounds us in reality by telling us whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, painful or pleasurable. Reason alone cannot do this – every moment would require a theory of the moment to resolve - can you imagine comparing every moment to every other moment in life reasonably? I don't think we would have the computational power to do so even once, let alone all the time.
( by reality, I mean the personally constructed kind, that includes values, meaning, god, etc not physical reality. )
Having faith in this construction, I realized that the qualia of a moment could not be stored in memory. We cannot recall an emotion any more then we can describe an emotion. We must recall the memory that gave rise to the emotion, and experience it on the PPS afresh every time. Which is interesting - as this way the memory and associated emotion would likely be different, as present circumstances add their qualia to the moment of recollection. When I introspect and recall my first heartbreak and this time smile, this would seem to be true. :smile:
I would be very interested in your opinion on this and other matters if you are likewise inclined.
Quoting Francis
We can build a mouse trap that something sets off, but what resets the mouse trap? As I devolve emotion, in my imagination, it becomes a simple bias akin to magnetism - a will to be one way rather then its opposite. Like the will to resist zero point energy - at this stage just a force, that later evolved in complexity to become an emotion.
Quoting Francis
We share DNA with bacteria, microbes react to painful stimuli. All life is one?
Why choose mammals?
I can relate to your frustration - I think you explain your ideas clearly, though, and while I can see that it’s condensed, I’m not left wondering what you’re on about.
I would question the accuracy of implying ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ as two extreme points of a spectrum, though. There’s a certain ambiguity to this description that enables a reduction of its complex relation to a binary structure. Value spectrums such as affect (pleasure/pain), morality (right/wrong) or light (black/white) described in these binaries create false dichotomies that suggest little more than a linear complexity to the relation. The variable position of the subject-object relation across multiple dimensions is ignored, and we assume that everyone is in the same ‘super-positioned’ state of mind. We’re not, of course - but we don’t yet have a sufficiently accurate relational structure that enables us to align our positions according to these value/potential spectrums, like we do with global time-zones (within a broader four-dimensional spacetime). The electromagnetic waves spectrum, for example, is much more complex, and broader, than our limited human perspective of ‘light’ suggests. My suspicion is that our understanding of both affect and morality may go a similar way.
Quoting Pop
See if you can challenge your model with her understanding. Your confidence in this ‘pleasure-pain spectrum’ might be shaken - just be open to the spectrum being more complex and broader than the binary suggests...
Hi, thanks for your valuable input.
Consider this:
Inanimate matter falls to zero point energy, whilst life resists zero point energy. In death we fall to zero point energy. This resistance to zero point energy is uniform amongst living creatures. Given genetic information leads to life, it means DNA contains this common bit of information. The information is to resist zero point energy - live and do not die. This seems to be the first bit of information in DNA. Compare this to the Death Pain / pleasure Life spectrum.
I see it as something fundamental, not something relating to belief systems, or sanity only. However it also orients us in our personally constructed reality, belief system or sanity. It may be as you say:a sufficiently accurate relational structure that enables us to align our positions according to these value/potential spectrums, like we do with global time-zone
There is no way to evaluate two unrelated experiences other then as values on a common measure for qualitative information. Qualitative information is essential for reality orientation. Each experience is self contained, experienced only once, so unique and unrelated, To ascertain its quality we must compare it to other experiences, and the only way to do this is by assigning the experience a value on the PPS. Once the experience has a value, we can compare the experience to other experiences. From this process we orient ourselves in reality, via an emotional gradient.
A PPS value grounds us in reality by telling us whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, painful or pleasurable. Reason alone cannot do this – every moment would require a theory of the moment to resolve - can you imagine comparing every moment to every other moment in life reasonably? I don't think we would have the computational power to do so even once, let alone all the time.
also : Having faith in this construction, I realized that the qualia of a moment could not be stored in memory. We cannot recall an emotion any more then we can describe an emotion. We must recall the memory that gave rise to the emotion, and experience the emotion on the PPS afresh every time. Which is interesting - as this way the memory and associated emotion would likely be different, as present circumstances add their qualia to the moment of recollection. When I introspect and recall my first heartbreak and this time smile, this would seem to be true.
This view prejudiced my willingness to explore what Lisa Fieldman Barrett had to offer as she speaks of emotions being made by brains. I will check her out, but if you agree with the above statements, then you will understand that brains are not handling emotions - the emotions are being felt body wide via values resolved to a death / pain / pleasure / life spectrum - an emotional gradient.
Of course the PPS may well reside in the brain, but note how there are two languages of consciousness - Reason and emotion, they are not miscible. They are not languages that belong to one system. A computer could not work with two different languages unless there was something in between to translate the languages
Why would one system have two languages? It doesn't make sense. It makes sense that there are two systems each with their own language. A brain based extracellular consciousness using reason and a biological intracellular consciousness using emotion. With a PPS translating in between - this makes sense, to me at least. :lol:
Your input and scrutiny are really appreciated. But please understand you are dealing with a really stubborn sort of person. :smile: I'll look forward to your reply. Its beer o'clock here.
If you are saying here that all inanimate matter falls to zero point energy without resistance, then we may struggle to reach an understanding. In my view, all matter seeks to resist zero point energy to a certain extent - this impetus of possibility doesn’t just drive the evolution of life, but the evolution of matter itself. The way I see it, your death pain / pleasure life spectrum is just a small part of this - much like the visible colour spectrum is just a small part of the range of electromagnetic waves. Placing it in this broader context enables us to recognise what we refer to as ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ for what they are objectively, in much the same way as we now recognise ‘white light’ and ‘blackness’ for what they are: the limitations of our sensory awareness.
Quoting Pop
I agree that each experience is unique, but NOT that each is unrelated nor self-contained. It is only possible to isolate an experience as a conceptual structure in the mind. Each experience also consists of far more information than the system can process in the moment. The interoceptive network has developed to streamline this with conceptual systems constructed from past experiences based on affect - an ongoing prediction of valence (positive/negative) and arousal (high/low) in the overall system - which informs a predictive energy distribution of attention and effort across the body in relation to its environment, as an ongoing four-dimensional event. Affect directs our focus in an experience towards relevant information in each moment - only ‘the difference that makes a difference’ to our conceptual systems or predictions. Similar to sampling in computing, this is the most efficient ongoing streaming of such detailed information.
Quoting Pop
Barrett’s theory of emotions might surprise you. The body feels not emotion but affect - the brain processes this affect through the conceptual systems as an emotion concept by recognising interoceptive patterns from previous experiences: not just when my body was in this situation, but in this affected state. The brain doesn’t store the memory in one location and the emotion in another - rather the memory experience is stored as a pattern of affect - this is the ‘language’ of the system.
With regards to recalling your first heartbreak with a smile, this demonstrates the complexity of conceptual systems, and the effect of adjustments on the entire structure. It’s not just present circumstances that have altered your recollection - it’s likely also the relativity of that particular pattern of affect to subsequent experiences. In relation to both current and previous experience - summarised efficiently in the interoceptive network - this past heartbreak has a comparatively positive valence to it.
Quoting Pop
There are not two languages - the language of consciousness is affect: valence-attention and arousal-effort. The interoceptive network converts sensory input into valence/arousal, which aligns easily with an output of attention/effort. All experiential information is also stored and retrieved in this format. The complication is that reason employs a quantitative logic and seeks certainty through reductionist methods that ignore, isolate or exclude qualitative information.
Yes, I will have to rephrase this. I was really referring to a low energy state - the boundary of life and death. Classical mechanics has no such theory. Ground state is inadequate. Zero point energy is good, but then people focus on quantum rather then classical matter - which is understandable.
Quoting Possibility Yes - I am only interested in the matter that jumps to life.
Quoting Possibility
Possibly I've overstated this, but you seem to agree with the general picture. The rest of your paragraph dose not disagree with me, however you characterize it idiomatically, very different to my own style, but I like it. I've steered clear of the computational aspects of consciousness as I believe they have been described quite well - as per your own description.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
The problem that reason has with emotion is that it can not describe it. If the interoceptive network processes emotions then emotions would be describable by reason - they can not be. they must be experienced and their affect felt. - body wide. The other problem is that the end construction must be self interested - ie pleasurable. The interoceptive network is primed to construct self interested constructions because in the end they resolve to a pain / pleasure spectrum - in my view.
What gets forgotten here is that it is cellular complexity that has created all this stuff. It doesn't seem to use a reasonable means of self organistion - it had no brain. Through evolution it created a brain to facilitate the triangulation and mechanics necessary for hearing and eyesight, etc and subsequently reason grew. But the whole extracellular / brain system has to slot into the underlying biological system somehow, and inform the underlying system in terms it understands. What I postulate creates a model that dose this.
From the perspectives that you have characterized, the hard problem of consciousness can not be solved. For this reason the paradigm is likely false.
You would need to describe a self loading mouse trap - I think I have somewhat done that. It is far more energy efficient then what Barrett is describing ( but I'll continue my research ).
The beauty of my theory is that it is easily provable, or negated by the end user. In the OP is an instance of consciousness. I am postulating this is the state of consciousness roughly at all times - sometimes the information source is memory rather then external. There are many other things going on of course, and the mechanics of it are exceedingly complex, and as you point out, but essentially this is what is happening. The related qualia articulation, I take to be a sort of logic. I think everybody has the ability to introspect and reflect on this. Thus prove or negate the theory.
I don't expect many converts of course - it is a monism, and we are talking consciousness. But it is a viable contender, currently rough around the edges, but difficult to reasonably dismiss. Very easy to dismiss off hand as most people will, and as it predicts.
I like to make unassailable logical loops that describe real world situations, and one funny one is that it will be consciousness that decides what consciousness is :smile: If you can see the humor in this - regardless of the theory it will be the end user who decides.
FYI: much of this is still speculative, but interesting.
With all due respect, this is the main problem I have with your theory - by excluding what transcends this ‘boundary of life and death’, your understanding of reality is limited. It’s similar to the geocentric model prior to Copernicus - the planets each had their own complicated movement pattern, and there was no way to predict this pattern until it was observed in action. When we recognise, firstly, that our position itself is variable, and secondly, that our variable perspective is not the central but rather one of many possible perspectives, we can account for this relativity in our understanding, enabling us to determine a less complicated and more accurately predictable model by imagining a transcendent perspective - a critical point of reference outside of the model.
Your theory has no such reference point. The extent to which one’s description of the event horizon deviates from your own is not a challenge to your theory, because in most cases there’s enough wiggle room in the meaning of words (ie. apologetics) so that their view appears to align with your model. This method historically guards against any paradigm shift that may render the existing model obsolete.
Quoting Pop
The interoceptive network does not require emotion to be describable by reason in order to make use of it. Rather, it requires both reason and bodily feeling to be describable by affect. Reason - having no interaction with reality outside of the brain - recognises bodily feeling only as ‘emotion’ concepts, which it translates from affect through the interoceptive network. This is why we think of emotions as inherent in our physical existence, even though they’re constructed by the interoceptive network from internal sensory information into predictive patterns of affect, and available to the brain as pre-qualified, value-laden concepts.
Quoting Pop
Not quite - cellular complexity allowed for external relational structures, but it was cellular diversity and the capacity for complex cells to transcend their cell boundaries and de-centre certain interactions that created organisms with a brain. We have this idea that individual survival, dominance and proliferation is at the heart of all living systems, but the impetus of every evolutionary leap (including abiogenesis, multi-cellular life, community and self-reflection) is closer to self-sacrifice for a broader perspective, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Your description here sounds like the extracellular/brain system formed separately from the biological system. But that cannot have been the case. The brain system must have developed as required by the biological system in relation to its environment. The classical perception of a primitive, underlying ‘emotional brain’ with which the ‘logical brain’ wrestles for control is outdated.
Quoting Pop
That’s a rapid jump to a dismissive conclusion. There’s much more to my position than what I’ve outlined here in response to your theory. The hard problem of consciousness assumes that inanimate matter is unable to ‘experience’. But reason assumes that ‘experience’ is only what we cannot quantify, what’s left once it has reduced everything else to logical objects in space and time. Experience is not an ‘extra’ dimension - in my view it encompasses what reason understands conceptually as ‘objects’, ‘space’ and ‘time’ - PLUS whatever reason isolates as qualia/phenomena or dismisses as feeling/imagination.
Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’ de-centres our classical conceptual notion of reality as objects in space and time by dismantling ‘time’ as we understand it, and presents a four-dimensional, quantum conceptual reality consisting of interrelated events, not ‘objects’. It’s worth a read. His process is backed by quantum field theory as an external position, but I can see its further application in positing a five-dimensional reality consisting of interrelated potentiality - by de-centring conceptual reality and dismantling what we refer to in our limited perspective as ‘experience’.
Quoting Pop
I dispute this, for reasons I believe I’ve explained to some extent above. What you may think is a process of either proving or negating the theory - based on introspection - is merely a subjective evaluation in relation to the structure of their own conceptual reality. As you go on to describe, you will either have ‘converts’, or it will be ‘dismissed off hand’.
I tend towards monism myself, and I can relate to your line of thinking. But I can also see some limitations, which you seem resigned to, or perhaps a little too dependent on, I’m not sure. Your theory is a credible, if anthropocentric, perspective of what’s happening, and aims to legitimise the significance of qualitative information, which I wholeheartedly support. But at this stage I find the theory itself insufficient as an explanation of consciousness, because it cannot posit a perspective outside of consciousness itself.
Quoting Possibility
I was referring to the issue at hand. Of course my theory exists within a larger theory. As a philosopher you would like to see it in this context, understandably, but even in its cut down version my web site stats tell me nobody has read the theory completely - average time spent being 3mins. :sad:
My friend works in HR for a large corp. Most of her time is spent resolving disputes that arise due to the limitations of email communication, so we will inevitably incur similar difficulties.
As I devolve emotion in my imagination, it becomes just a bias to be one way rather then another. This is still fuzzy in my mind, but it seems to be linked to the first instruction in DNA - live and do not die. Emotions provide impetus to life, P-Zombies do not posses them, Emotions seem to be a force, and as such we cannot manipulate them, rather they manipulate us.
My philosophy is most closely aligned with monistic idealism, where information is fundamental. And the first bit of information informing the big bang was not entirely reasonable. A reasonable big bang would send particles in all directions and they would continue on to infinity away from big bang center to eternity never to meet again. The information had a flaw, or a kink in it, that created a biased information. And biased information is emotion.
The bias exerted a pull on the particles, much like a car pulling to the side, such that the particles curved in on themselves in orbit and developed spin. As the universe fell in on itself in this way it had to self resolve - self organize. This process of self organisation created consciousness. The universe became an evolving process of self organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state.
Word for word, this is also my definition of human consciousness.
The earth was thus determined. Life creating consciousness mutated from the universal consciousness that determined the earth. The domino fell with a skew to the side and life evolved, where consciousness drives evolution by mutation, and natural selection selects. Consciousness is always mutating - every instance is unique, as you also believe. But the flawed fundamental instruction, the first bit of information that informed the universe, and what caused the universe, and consciousness, is preserved in everything in the universe, it is fundamental. It may be the first instruction in DNA - live and do not die! and it is emotional information, in the form of a bias - and emotional information creates our consciousness - only, and always, but not how Barrett sees it.
Nothing dies in this universe, it just falls to a different level of consciousness.
Universal consciousness is a far cry from human consciousness, it is just evolving, and not aware of anything. The laws of physics describe a biased universe.
That is the big picture, in one breath, as I understand it. It is theory upon theory, there is little here that I can prove, it is a belief. and as a belief, I feel uncomfortable positing it. But you sort of asked.
So from this perspective I hope you can understand why I can not accept Barrett's interpretation. We should just disagree on this issue, and leave it at that.
I wanted to ask you about a thread about six months ago, where you posted : "The learner is the universe itself, and the learned is the universe." Given we are talking about a situation in consciousness / mind, how did you know this?
I kind of agree with what you said, and suspect that this information is buried deep in DNA information or somewhere. If the fundamental bit of information is preserved in everything, so might be other information. I understand this is all highly speculative stuff, if you would rather not go into it.
Unfortunately, your website does not lend itself to being studied at length. Breaking your theory up into bite-size chunks addressing particular questions or areas of inquiry would be my suggestion (from a strictly marketing/communication standpoint).
Quoting Pop
Well, I don’t claim objective knowledge - I can only try to express what I currently understand from continually imagining, conceptualising, experiencing/evaluating and then reimagining and re-conceptualising inter-subjective relational structures of potential/value from six-dimensional possibility. It’s a process similar to the scientific method, and extends into it, but accounts for qualitative as well as quantitative information, and the indeterminacy (uncertainty/subjectivity) or dimensional relativity of all relational structure.
My own philosophy (highly speculative) suggests that universal existence is fundamentally driven to interrelate - to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - but is perpetually haunted by the simplest of information: the possibility (and sublime effortlessness) of non-existence. The 0 of the absolute binary. It is this binary that is eventually interpreted by life forms (four-dimensional events) as ‘live and do not die’. A similar binary interpretation forms the perceived limitations of universal existence at every dimensional level of relational structure, from one-dimensional sub-atomic particles to five-dimensional conceptual systems.
So, the ‘bias’ you’re referring to is fairly obvious at this fundamental level: to exist, or to not exist, that is the question. You may call it ‘emotion information’, but you have to recognise the anthropocentric lens this interpretation has, and account for it in relation to physics (which struggles to reconcile the quantitative/qualitative bias - eg. QM/gravity). The less energy or information a system has or is aware of, connected to or collaborating with, the stronger the tendency to fall back towards a lower dimensional level of relational structure, or ‘consciousness’: to ignore, isolate or exclude information that requires more effort and attention to integrate than appears to be available. But, like the electron in its orbit, it takes a surge of effort to traverse either the upper or lower limit. So the system tends to ‘bounce’ or oscillate between its determined limits, for the most part. Until a ‘chance’ interaction enables a collaboration or exclusion strong enough (qualitative-attention and quantitative-effort) to tip the bias - like the behaviour of a magnetic ‘force’.
As a monist and structural realist, my aim has been to understand a relational structure of existence that is consistent and rational (without reliance on, or rejection of, logic or ‘reason’) from ‘the All’ to ‘the Big Bang’ and back again. In my view, our biggest hurdles in understanding have all derived from an either-or approach to the quantitative/qualitative aspect of information, including the singularity, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the advent of multi-cellular organisms, consciousness, culture and even the notion of ‘love’. Barrett’s theory goes some way towards accounting for our system bias, in my view - whether or not she would agree with me. But I’m happy to put a pin in that disagreement, although I will probably continue to refer to her model.
Yes I agree, I'm a total novice at this, but I think I can find a better way to do it. I'm glad you replied, I value your input as one of the deepest thinkers here, and you have found some flaws with the theory for which I am grateful. You come at this from a different angle to me, which is really valuable as you will see things that I cannot, but I think we are roughly in the same ball park.
Quoting Possibility
I did not mean this in the way it was taken. But it is funny that this becomes a valid argument with a complete theory, which you subsequently use on me for not presenting one. :smile:
The role of emotion has not been pinned down by science, and it is not a topic materialism can easily deal with. The way I see it, the biological system already understood emotion - why would it need a second emotional processor? I don't think it did, It needed a triangulation processor. Something to strip away the emotion from the information. A P.zombie can do all the things that a person can mentally,
but it has no impetus to do them - it lacks the impetus that emotion provides as it has no Pain / Pleasure spectrum. Emotion seems to be the force providing impetus to consciousness. In science a bias is a systemic error, so there can be no advantage in possessing a systemic error in your computation. The best computation will be hard cold reason / logic , an emotional force can only hinder this, in my view. But this all takes time to integrate, so in the meantime I will look forward to your objections.
I agree with all of paragraph 1 and 2: we are all in the same boat trying to make the most of what little information there is in our possession.
Quoting Possibility
As an idealist this is not such a big problem for me as ultimately, I believe, reality only exists in mind, so minds that rely on physical proof might be unreachable, but there are plenty left over. All I can hope for realistically is to plant a seed or two.
I will have to brush up on structural realism.
So, do you believe that the universe is conscious but not self aware - a process of self organization with a bias to resist zero point energy? creating order from chaos? It seems this is what consciousness is - the order from what otherwise would be chaos? It is a different order in everybody, and everything.
I’m curious about this statement. Does a simple cellular organism experience pain or pleasure? It certainly would try to avoid existential threats - which seems to match your idea of what consciousness is for. So, is that organism conscious?
Post quantum era science can no longer afford to simply dismiss the systemic errors in its computations. Electromagnetism and gravity cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics in relation to our predictions, because one computation treats the qualitative aspects of energy and matter as a purely quantitative value, and the other computation excludes it altogether. So, in my view, the biological system didn’t develop a second ‘emotional processor’ - it developed a more complex system to process differentiated value relations. As William James said: “‘Fear’ of getting wet is not the same fear as fear of a bear”.
Quoting Pop
Try to keep an open mind when you do - such as it is. It’s a valid alternative to idealism, in my view. If you believe that reality exists only in mind, then why do so many different minds exist? And what is this ‘emotion information’ as a relational structure between minds? And how does emotion exist outside of mind? When we posit the existence of an external ‘force’, we imply an aspect of existence beyond what that force acts between. It would be ignorant to not then strive to relate to that ‘force’ as if it, too, were an aspect of existence, with properties and attributes, such that we might collaborate with it.
Quoting Pop
I believe that humanity is the self-aware aspect of the universe, that life is the conscious aspect, and that all other elements of the universe have dimensionally reduced capacities for awareness, connection and collaboration, on account of the attention and effort (energy) limitations of their integrated relational structures. We may appear to be ‘creating’ order in our mind, but this ‘order in chaos’ exists regardless: as a fundamental possibility. All we’re really doing is understanding it in order to collaborate with minimal prediction error (our source of suffering). And it only appears to be a different order for everybody and everything because we’re still developing a system to reliably distinguish between value and meaning - this is the impending paradigm shift. Beyond this horizon, the ‘zero point [potential]’ becomes not death but nihilism: the p-zombie state of existence.
We all have different conceptions as to what consciousness is. I have defined it as a system of self organization. But yes microorganisms do react to painful stimuli, so I would assume the absence of pain would be pleasure.
You can direct your questions by hovering over the comment near the time indicator and clicking the arrow.
How do you know if the stimuli is ‘painful’? Is it because it would be painful to you? Or is it assumed from the microorganism’s repellent reaction?
Who’s we?
But you can’t separate out the qualitative information from the quantitative in this process. The two-dimensional map alignment is based on all of it. The main difference between us and the paramecium is that we can now adjust and align complex four-dimensional maps - using the same valence/arousal-to-effort/attention system. We also have the capacity to differentiate between potential map alignment instructions, and evaluate them in relation to each other, through our conceptual systems. And with self-reflection and abstract language, we can even adjust and align five-dimensional maps or conceptual systems and relate them to each other.
So the separation of qualitative and quantitative information is an arbitrary differentiation of possible map alignment instructions (ie. reductionist methodology), that is incompatible with the way we actually interact with reality. We’ve grown so used to interacting with each other on a purely conceptual level, that we haven’t accurately developed our understanding of five-dimensional reality in order to adjust and align our conceptual systems for actual interactions.
We can not know this for sure with other humans either. I doubt vey much that it would be exactly the same pain that I, or you, would feel, but it is an emotion that gives impetus to behavior. There is information processing going on, and a decision is made, however limited it may be.
Quoting Possibility
I'm having trouble understanding you as I don't think in terms of dimensions, but I think you are confirming that emotion cannot be separated from information. That would be how I understand it, from a reductionist point of view. I would say, from an idealists perspective, everything can be reduced to information, and everything has qualia, including information. How it is formed and processed is the question. I need to consider this, as you have instilled some doubt.
True. It may not even be ‘pain’, and the ‘emotion’ may be misinterpreted, as well as the cause. It is, however, a negative value affect perceived in the organism, attributed to the affecting area/object/event, that gives impetus to repellent action.
Quoting Pop
That’s okay - most people don’t think in terms of dimensions. The reason I do is because it helps me to keep everything in perspective. Much of our confusion in discussion comes from treating ideas or concepts (5D) as actual observable events (4D), or even as physical ‘objects’ (3D), and ignoring the relative value we would attribute from our own experiential position.
I would say that as humans we CAN (and do) differentiate and therefore ignore, isolate and exclude our emotional position as ‘irrelevant’ information in relation to how we conceptualise the world - but NOT in our temporal existence. Once the Will gets involved - the function by which one determines and initiates action - all bets are off. Because the organism’s effort and attention is allocated according to affect - always. It’s a limitation of our existence.
For me, though, the base binary of information is not Shannon information, but existence. It goes deeper than a material manifestation of knowledge. Shannon information is a logical ratio that effectively assumes an aligned spatial position - and then disregards the first three dimensions. So each ‘bit’ of information relies on physical contact as its base existence: 0 is no relation on contact; I is relation on contact, and therefore Shannon information exists relative to physical contact. Those who prescribe to digital logic tend to take material existence as a given, or ignore it altogether.
All logic works in a similar way, usually relying on anthropocentrism as a base existence: zero and positive/negative infinity are its value limits in relation to an assumption of ‘life’ as a four-dimensional event. This seems more intuitive, assuming an aligned spatio-temporal position - except, like digital logic, it only assigns one value at a time.
This one-value problem corresponds to the uncertainty principle, and the irreducibility of conjugate variable pairings that mess with the qualitative/quantitative divide: position/momentum; matter/energy; valence/arousal; attention/effort.
If we take the base binary of information instead to be existence/non-existence, then a relational structure develops in a dimensional form that can account for the quantitative/qualitative divide more objectively than either human or digital logic.
Sorry, this got a little heavy.
No, that's ok, I'm glad you explained it. My problem is, as I do not think as you, I can not not always evaluate what you are saying, but I'm glad to get your alternative view, and perspective. I'm a plain old reductionist - too old to change now.
I'm still trying to articulate how emotional information works. I'll run it by you when I'm finished.
Quoting Possibility
- I'll take this, as you are describing a process of self organization with an affective bias.
Yeah, not many people think like me, I’m afraid.
The way I see it, reductionism seeks accurate methodologies to render the world into more efficient forms of information. The problem is that the methodologies we currently rely on and have built into our language and logic are based on old assumptions and anthropocentrism that no longer stand up to scrutiny. Somewhere along the way, we figured it was more important to reliably understand each other (either quantitatively or qualitatively) than to reliably understand reality as a whole. It’s a compromise that most reductionists seem comfortable with, but only because they’ve convinced themselves of certain limitations.
As a reductionist-idealist, it appears that you view consciousness as the base existence, with the ‘pleasure/pain spectrum’ and ‘zero point energy’ as upper and lower limitations in relation to an assumption of ‘mind’. Your notion of ‘emotion-information’ seems to me just another form of anthropocentric logic - albeit one with a bias towards qualitative information, dismissing quantitative information as ‘irrelevant’. That’s how I understand it, at this stage, anyway.
At some point, like every other theory of consciousness, you’re going to have to reconcile your theory with quantum physics (the home of reductionist-materialists) - just like any quantum physics interpretation is going to have to reconcile with general relativity, gravity, the measurement problem and, of course, qualia.
The way I see it, it’s never too late to change. You seem to otherwise have an active, inquisitive mind.
Quoting Pop
Sort of. Our self-organisation process from intentionality to action will always be subject to affect: every thought, word and movement contains at least some reference to our affective state, no matter how ‘rational’ we think we are. As far as I can see it’s only a ‘bias’ if it’s excluding or unfairly dismissive of information, though.
I was very interested as you suggested in your OP that it tackles the hard problem of consciousness. However, I don't think you actually touch on that question.
The article makes an early claim that everything living is conscious. eg:
You don't offer any basis for this claim. It sounds like you are assuming panpsychism, which is not generally accepted. Perhaps you could offer a more detailed account of why you think everything living is conscious.
Overall, I'd say that you've conflated self-organisation and consciousness without providing an explanation.
Also, take a look at the Free Energy Principle (from Karl Friston), I think you'll find it's very similar to your theory of the Emotional Gradient, but is more general. I'd also suggest it's a better characterisation than using the word 'emotion'.
Hooray! I think we agree! It seems to me that this is what I'm characterizing in the OP instance of consciousness. In my estimation, and yours, consciousness at all times has an affective state, and the affective state reduces to a feeling, which is ultimately resolved to a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum. Affect / feelings are ultimately painful or pleasurable, that they have this affect on us that orients us in our personal reality, and provides impetus to behavior. The affect creates an emotional bias - it colors the subsequent thinking / response with emotion. Hard to see when the affect is mild, but easy when it is severe. It is the element P.Zombies lack, that we posses, so this is the element that creates consciousness. In my thinking, the PPS is the base, thinking ultimately bounces off this base, to create more thinking and action.
Quoting Possibility
Yes I agree, I often find myself thinking there's got to be a better way. Pining complex concepts to simple expressions is not ideal, but as you say that is where we are. Or at least that is where I am, not so yourself.
Quoting Possibility
No not at all. I think you would characterize our position as being relative to the different dimensions of reality effecting us. I would simply say we poses a sanity that orients us in our world. Yes it is anthropocentric, as from an idealists point of view reality is personally constructed and only exists in an end user consciousness. There is an outside physical world with real people, but we have no access to it. We only have access to our personal construction of it, which is slightly different for everyone. Hence every instance of consciousness is unique.
Quoting Possibility
This would be outside my skillset, and area of interest. I am really more interested in the psychology, belief, and sanity aspects of consciousness. I think you are correct, that it needs more information to be
more credible. I see this information coming from research in biology. Proving cellular complexity to be a consciousness would seal the deal, I think, and there are good strides being made with cellular imaging and animation - at some point the penny must drop that this is too complex to be explained by chance
Hi, well you must be the first to have read it fully. :smile: My web sit stats say the average stay is 3 mins.
Quoting Malcolm Lett
Yes, I think because we all have different conceptions of consciousness, we also have different hard problems. I was trying to characterize how emotions create a mechanism that drives consciousness.
This was what i considered as being hard . Yes my theory is panpsychist with a slight twist.
Quoting Malcolm Lett
I couldn't get over the fact that even the simplest of creatures are involved in a process of self organization, and I asked myself am I always involved in a process of self organization, and concluded yes. So I arrived at a definition, and tested if the definition works for the universe and concluded that it did.
I don't believe there is agreement as to what consciousness is so a definition was necessary, of course it only works within the theory, and not for immaterial consciousness, etc.
Quoting Malcolm Lett
Yes, but it is a difficult concept to understand and also relies on assumptions. I have stated zero point energy, but this also is not the ideal term. I like emotion, but admit this may be my personal bias creeping in. Emotions would have evolved like everything else, but there is no reason to believe all living creatures do not posses them in some form, and a bias to be just so, and no other way is what the laws of classical physics describe of the universe.
Thanks for your input.
Steady on - my point is that our affective state is NOT reducible to ‘a feeling’ or resolved to a point on a pain-pleasure spectrum, except through ignorance, isolation or exclusion of information. Subsuming an affective state under a singular value-concept of ‘pleasure-pain’ ignores the complexity of that state, and ultimately the complexity of consciousness itself.
Affect is not just a position on a linear scale between pleasure and pain - it includes an axis of arousal, and is part of a four-dimensional interoceptive state. This ongoing overall state is related to an ongoing four-dimensional prediction provided by conceptual reality, and the interaction generates an ongoing, predictive instruction of effort and attention towards an alignment of state and prediction. Most of that effort and attention is directed towards adjusting the state, with some directed towards adjusting the prediction, in anticipation of future states.
This works in a similar way to genetic information. The organism generates a predictive instruction of effort and attention towards an alignment of life-form and how it lives. Most of that effort and attention is directed towards adjusting how it lives, but some is directed towards adjusting the future life-form, including gene alteration or variability, the environment it is born into, child-rearing practises, etc.
Valence (pleasant/unpleasant) is one of two overall aspects of affect, but pain is not - rather, it often has a particular spatial location in the body. In this way, pain contributes to overall affect - both in terms of valence and arousal - but is not an overall measure in itself. So the impetus is much more complex than towards pleasure and away from pain. There are plenty of situations where we are motivated towards a particular instance of pain or away from a particular instance of pleasure. Your spectrum is unreliable as an explanation of the impetus. You need to explain why we are motivated, for instance, to persist with some pain of exercise but not others, or to avoid a caress in one situation but actively pursue it in another. Lasting pleasure in relation to short-term pain (or vice versa) or localised pain (with its accompanying arousal) in relation to overall pleasure is not accounted for in your reductionist methodology.
Thinking and behaviour are always affected by the interoceptive state of the organism, whether we identify an ‘emotion’ or not. The classical view assumes that thinking is always rational, and that emotion is an isolated element that runs interference on our behaviour from some ‘primitive’ area of the brain. But “affect is a constant current throughout your life, even when you are completely still or asleep. It does not turn on and off in response to events you experience as emotional. In this sense, affect is a fundamental aspect of consciousness, like brightness and loudness.”
Quoting Pop
I think we continually strive to orient us in our world by developing an extended relational structure through a process of prediction, interaction, error, adjustment and sampling. But each time we manage an accurate orientation, we become vaguely aware of a world beyond that external structure, and with that the inadequacy of the existing system to complete this orientation alone. A paradigm shift requires a redistribution of effort and attention away from preserving the existing system and increasing awareness and connection towards a collaborative effort to orient collectively in the world beyond. This describes the sacrifice (and rarity) of every dimensional shift in an increasing awareness: including atomic (1D), molecular (2D), biochemical (3D), biological life (4D), socio-cultural values (5D) and meaningful relations (6D). The words we use at each level differs, but the process is the same:randomness at one level is variation at another, or prediction or imagination.
While I agree that we rely for the most part on a personal construction of the world (inside and out), I disagree that we have no access to reality at all. Rather, our access is limited by the construction of the system and by its available energy - the attention and effort we can spare in the moment - and our efficiency in this has been developing at a rapid rate. How do you think we constructed our view of reality in the first place?
That you refer to ‘an outside physical world with real people’ is telling. The reality of the world beyond the ‘self’ does not really consist of ‘things’ and ‘people’, but of interrelated possibility or existence-information, which we organise into ideas, subsume under concepts, render as objects and reduce to physics for our various purposes. And it’s the same inside our skin - we are inseparable from this existence-information, except in our own ‘mind’ or socio-cultural construction through ignorance, isolation and exclusion.
If every instance of consciousness is unique, then why get caught up in the inaccuracy of defining consciousness from our own limited experience? Our understanding of consciousness will come not from the content, but from the structure. Not from the trees, but from the forest. Not from quanta or qualia, but from a tested and refined relational structure that renders this complexity of information reliable for every interaction.
Quoting Pop
Well, we’ll put it down to a limitation of the system for them moment. I’ve found that the psychology, belief and sanity aspects of consciousness tend to fall outside most philosophers’ area of interest - if you’re not willing to venture outside of this particular area of interest, then you may struggle to develop your theory from a philosophical perspective.
The penny has dropped many times over, and there are many recent books fleshing out this ‘too complex to be explained by chance’ argument, and suggesting possible alternatives. But biochemistry research is hemmed in from both sides by some stubborn assumptions in materialism and evolutionary theory. Thomas Nagel, in his book ‘Mind and Cosmos’, offers some interesting speculation in the wake of these unravelling conceptions. He was unsurprisingly criticised for an open-mindedness to teleological alternatives, but the questions and structural process he proposes make his book worth a read.
Quoting Pop
I see no reason why consciousness should be exclusive to organic lifeforms. If consciousness is indicated by the impulse towards self organization, what are the implications in considering that the atom indisputably factors as one of the greatest organizations known to man? On another hand, if a particular degree of intelligence is a nessecary criterion for indicating the presence of consciousness, consider AI.
It seems that the hylozoist perspective has more hope in the present day than has ever been seen in the history of man.
Neither do I, and I intend to expand the theory in that direction in the future sometime.
I think you mostly object to my reductionist approach. You interpret what I am saying literally and definitively. But I characterize the theory as a sketch. And in the instance of consciousness I state it works something like this.
Our affective state has to be reducible to something - note that it is always either painful, or pleasurable, or something in between. There is great complexity going on , as you state, and I doubt that such a thing as an instance of consciousness can exist, however this complex state has to be characterized in some way and I think the OP dose a fair job. It is not ignoring the complexity of the state, but trying to pin it to a simple, and widely understood expression.
Quoting Possibility
This is where our philosophies diverge. From an idealists perspective all the things you mention are variable concepts in our mind. So it is not possible for me to construct a theory from the paradigm that you pose. I have to look to the trees, and find the elements that are common to every tree, and proceed from there. I think I have characterized a reliable emotional mechanism of consciousness, but you find it too simplistic for your paradigm.
If you do not agree that affective states are feelings that ultimately resolve to a pain / pleasure spectrum, then you are left in an affective limbo, with no possibility of answering the hard problem, as is the case with Barrett, I imagine.
Quoting Possibility
I didn't say we have no access to reality. We have access to the physical world via information, which sadly is incomplete and often flawed or false. We must nevertheless join the dots, and there lies the problem - we fill in the blanks with our hopes, and create a belief.
I too state in my theory that we are inseparable from the information surrounding us - we breath it in like air, our consciousness integrates it and turns it into emotion, via the PPS, affecting our entire body, providing impetus to behavior.
At least we are in the same ball park. :smile:
The only thing we know with certainty sufficient to take for granted is that the majority of humans are conscious. As our observations of the animal kingdom have improved along with our understanding of neuroscience it is has become generally accepted that many animals are also conscious - so we now say that is is likely that a large part of the animal kingdom also experience consciousness -- ie: phenomenal experience.
Beyond that we just don't know. All statements beyond that are nothing more than conjecture. All options are possible, though some are more reasonable/likely than others.
And any such conjectures need to be presented with a reasonable explanation as to why anyone else might find those conjectures compelling.
My point is, @Pop cannot make a statement to the effect that all things experience consciousness and assume it to be self evident. They either must state that they take it as an assumption/opinion (and thus make it explicit that they will not attempt to prove it), or they must offer some rationale.
I don’t object to reductionist methodology per se - I think it’s a necessary process from imagination and understanding to interaction, particularly for testing belief structures, and for the creative process to produce anything. But a widely understood expression seems a flimsy choice of something to pin a theory of consciousness to. As such, I think you’re bound by your interpretation of the expression. The success of a reductionist approach begins with the highest complexity of understanding, and aims to render that complexity in a simpler format, with minimal loss of information. I don’t think you’ve done that. As a result, you cannot account for experiences that are simultaneously both painful and pleasurable in your methodology.
I disagree that our affective state has to be reducible further than we require to interact with a reality that the system recognises as four-dimensional. To reduce it further is to take it out of the realm of living experience - I’m happy to go there, but you’ve already said it’s out of your area of interest.
Quoting Pop
As variable concepts in our mind, they’re unproven theories, hypotheses to be tested and refined with inter-subjective experience. It’s how we’ve constructed all our shared understanding of the universe and its history beyond empirical evidence.
Looking at what is common to every tree will not give you an understanding of the forest - it is how each tree differs from another and how they relate to each other that provides the information you need. But it appears you are looking only for certainty, not understanding. Labelling it a ‘spruce forest’ because most of the trees classify as spruce is not understanding it. This is the problem with reductionism for its own sake - it abandons understanding for fear of uncertainty.
Quoting Pop
How do you figure that? Firstly, Barrett never aimed to answer the hard problem, but to provide a more accurate theory of emotion that reconciles psychology with current neuroscience. Secondly, if according to idealism, everything exists in mind, then surely there can be no hard problem to begin with?
I think you need to define consciousness, as we all posses a different conception.
I have defined it as a process of self organization. I think, unless there is a god, everything in the universe is undergoing a process of self organization. Including us right here, right now!
Everything in the universe is in motion. Everything is either mutating or consolidating - change is the only constant. Consciousness allows us to navigate this constant change - through a process of self organization. This process of self organization has an emotional bias at its base - the fear of death. This emotional gradient provides impetus to this process of self organization, through a fear of death, an aversion to pain, and an attraction to pleasure. We need to self organize relative to constantly changing external information, and an inbuilt bias to continue to live rather then die. Consciousness facilitates this.
Abiogenesis theories, from the perspective of biology, chemistry, geophysics, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology, agree that self organization led to life. Theories of God and aliens, do not. This is where I get my definition of consciousness.
[b]If self organization led to life, then life is an expression of self organization.
If A leads to B, then B is an expression of A.
As previously stated with supporting videos: All living creatures are self learning and programming - all living creatures are involved in a process of self organisation - always! For this to occur there must be an information processing system to facilitates this, and It must have always been present - otherwise how could they self learn, program, and self organise in the first place?
I think you need to provide a definition of consciousness so we can know exactly what it is that you are talking about. You also need to draw a line separating conscious creatures, and non conscious creatures, for your statement to be meaningful.
That is a good one. I think If one seeks to avoid the experience then it is more painful then pleasurable, and visa versa. If they are equal then it is a neutral experience.
Quoting Possibility
By studying expressions of consciousness, I've come to understand that consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended ( an evolving process of self organization with no upper limit :starstruck: ). So I look to its base for consistent elements. The trees are all different in their expression, but for a common reason.
Quoting Possibility
I've been there and found it to be a dead end. Emotion is the difference between a human being and a P.Zombie. Solving emotion, solves consciousness, in my opinion. Who would not want to do that?
Your first explanation is circular. You’ve been arguing that the pain-pleasure spectrum is the impetus for behaviour, and yet here you’re saying that our behaviour determines the position of such an experience on the spectrum. So which is it?
Your second explanation suggests the experience is void of information, which is inconsistent with such an experience. A simultaneously painful and pleasurable experience is far from ‘neutral’, and a spectrum, by definition, has no ‘neutral’ position. What you’re referring to is a linear structure, with positive values on one side, negative values on the other, and an infinite value (zero) in the centre. But that ignores the complexity of the relation between pain and pleasure, doesn’t it?
I understand that you’ve put a lot of stock into the pain-pleasure spectrum, and it seems logical. But it’s a constrained logic. You’re working within human experience and language, and then making inferences across all living systems based on assumed intentionality. Most humans would agree with the logic of your theory, but it has no practical value. You can’t apply it to improve your interactions with reality. It doesn’t change how we relate to the world, or to each other. It offers little more than a description of consciousness from within consciousness - like the geocentric model of the solar system.
If I can draw an analogy, describing gender as a ‘male-female spectrum’ is a false construct that allows reduction to a binary when it suits. Be careful what reductionism enables you to ignore, isolate and exclude in human experience. Take another look at the electromagnetic wave spectrum, to get an idea of the complexity that an open-ended spectrum would entail, and the ignorance, isolation and exclusion the structure supports when we define upper and lower limits. I’m persisting because I believe understanding the human perception of emotion in a broader context of effort and attention (energy) distribution for all matter with which we interact is a worthwhile challenge.
Quoting Pop
Are you suggesting that we have an infinite capacity for both pleasure and pain? Or that consciousness exists beyond pleasure? You’ve said before that nothing dies in the universe, it just falls to a lower level of consciousness - I imagine that’s what you believe occurs when pain is unavoidably maximised? So, would that mean maximal pleasure may lead to a higher level of consciousness?
The upper limit is never an easy horizon to explore. No horizon ever is, but it’s always enabled a broader understanding of our complex and relative place in the world. You could start with the energy limitations of the system: self-organisation at every level of consciousness is limited by the capacity of the system to acquire energy/information from its environment and process it. As humans, we are the highest energy consumers, but as individuals, we have energy/information limits. We get around these limitations by connection and collaboration with each other, and with our environment.
Or alternatively, take a look at Kant’s Critique of the Faculty of Judgement - his aesthetic process towards transcendent, non-conceptual delight may be more appealing to your idealist perspective, if you can resist the reductionist urge to judge.
Quoting Pop
Well, that’s a gross oversimplification, but I do agree that ‘solving emotion solves consciousness’, which is why I believe Barrett’s scientific meta-research into the classical theories of emotion are important to the discussion, even if you’re tempted to dismiss her constructionist theories off-hand.
My difficulty with you using the term ‘emotion’ is that it generally refers to a particular feeling, whereas the term ‘affect’ refers to feeling in general, whether or not it is apperceived as ‘emotion’. We don’t always identify affect as emotion, but emotion is always identified from affect, whether in self-reflection, or in rationalising behaviour. In this way, an animal is affected by feeling pleasant or unpleasant valence and high or low arousal, without assuming any particular ‘emotion’ can be identified in that animal’s experience. That we attribute a particular emotion, such as pain, based on our own conceptual structures is far less certain than attributing emotion to humans based on behaviour or facial expression. And despite decades of searching by essentialist researchers, there is no typical set of behaviour or facial expressions that would reliably identify a particular emotional essence across human experience anyway. Affect, on the other hand, is consistent across all living systems, regardless of the indeterminacy of emotion. So, if you’re going to jump between human and animal consciousness, then perhaps ‘affect’ is a more consistent term for what you’re referring to. Just a thought.
From an idealist perspective, you believe we have access to reality only through information, which you say is flawed and false in relation to some ‘physical world with real people’ that you believe exists - but from a monist perspective this, too, cannot exist as anything other than information. So we fill in the blanks with ‘hope’ - which you say consists mostly of emotion-information - to create a ‘belief’, and from the limitations of that belief system employ reductionism in relation to seeking a consistent belief statement, dismissing outliers and anomalies, to arrive at some common denominator that most people would currently agree to be ‘true’. This becomes our best approximation of reality. Am I close?
FWIW, I agree that we have access to reality only through information, and that what we receive is inaccurate and incomplete. But it’s because the information we receive is limited and skewed by the structure of the information system that receives and processes it, not because something different exists in reality.
The base consistency of reality is in its relational structure: All living systems consist of a four-dimensional integrated system of information, and evolve according to the sustainability of their self-organisation process to transform information/energy from their interaction with the world into a fulfilment of ongoing effort and attention requirements for the integrated system.
Hi. I'm arguing that the combination of pleasure and pain may be a pleasure to some, and not to others.
And then there is the stoic thing where you hate that which you desire in equal proportion, in order to annihilate them both. The PPS is personally malleable, if not entirely controllable.
Quoting Possibility
I was thinking more of a 2D structure rather then linear, such that similar degrees of pain could be differentiated laterally. It is a gradient, but I don't know its structure absolutely.
Quoting Possibility
The idea of pain / pleasure was well established by Jeremy Bentham, some 200 years ago. Barrett also had a theory along similar lines which she later abandoned - I don't know why. The difference with mine is that I'm saying the emotions belong to the cellular consciousness, and this is the way the whole body articulates as all mind. I have mentioned you in another part of the forum to answer a question related to this.
Knowledge of a pain pleasure spectrum allows one to manipulate it to some extent. this sounds crazy in the west, but in the east it is a common practice of meditation, and yogic logic. I have had some success with it, although I am not a meditator in the usual sense. It allows for a very simple understanding of consciousness - simple but valid, I believe. And an awful lot can be done with this.
Quoting Possibility
Yeah, that is funny - I would have said the opposite. Perhaps it is cultural. I will have to take more care with my expression next draft. Thank you, the entire paragraph is valuable and valid information.
Quoting Possibility
Yes that paragraph is largely true, but not the emotion - information bit. However yes, I clumsily cut to the chase leaving out all the important detail which you find wanting, understandably.
Quoting Possibility
Yes I agree entirely, I would have said we color reality with our belief system.
Quoting Possibility
I hope you don't take offense with my altering the last part of your paragraph, it was meant in jest. No disrespect intended, I just thought it would be funny to skew it to my understanding.
Quoting Possibility
Consciousness has no boundary. It is endlessly variable and open ended, so what you suggest is not theoretically impossible, in my opinion. It was not what I was referring to. I was referring to your suggestion that it could be contained and described like a forest. We could catalogue and take account of it theoretically up until today, but tomorrow it will be something different. It will have grown beyond our conception of it. We can characterize it, as I have done with the PPS, but upon doing that, it then has the opportunity of transcending that, whether it will, and how, I don't know. This is all highly speculative stuff, and I love to speculate, but I am no Guru. I have a theory that I call a sketch, but I have so much more to learn.
I would be interested to hear your understanding of consciousness?
My point is that ‘pleasure or pain’ is insufficient, because pain is something else.
[quote="Pop;459244"And then there is the stoic thing where you hate that which you desire in equal proportion, in order to annihilate them both. The PPS is personally malleable, if not entirely controllable.[/quote]
Stoicism is misunderstood in the modern understanding of the adjective ‘stoic’. This is certainly not a Stoicist strategy to free oneself of desire and hatred. The aim is not to control it, but to understand it, and in so doing, determine and initiate more informative and less erroneous predictions and subsequent actions. Pain, hate and desire are not annihilated - they’re simply less prominent in the bigger picture.
Quoting Pop
Differentiated how? Would the 2D structure of affect - as valence (pleasant-unpleasant) and arousal (high-low) - suffice?
I maintain that pain is something else, but it is still part of the interoceptive network. Pain is usually a located, urgent demand for effort and/or attention somewhere in the body - each instance has an intensity and particular spatial quality, and can appear, disappear or change over time. It is pure interoceptive feed forward, though. It has no reference to the outside world, and no clue what else is going on in the body.
Affect, on the other hand, refers to an overall state of the system. It is a two-dimensional relation that consists of valence and arousal, and is ongoing: it monitors the system even when you’re asleep or unconscious, to keep the brain updated on energy (effort and attention) requirements and availability.
Affect is tasked to ensure sufficient energy resources are available when required, in a timely fashion. Rather than obtain enough sensory information first (which would result in a delay), the system generates a ‘wavefunction’ of effort and attention from an ongoing 4D construction of the system (from the interoceptive network) interoception in relation to an ongoing 4D construction of conceptual reality. This particular wavefunction is all that Barrett focuses on - but in my view the entire amorphous, 5D relational structure is consciousness: the perceivable potentiality of our existence. The wavefunction enables the system to continually adjust and refine its future effort and attention requirements, and instruct the brain when it needs to pump the blood faster or breath quicker, etc. to prepare for greater demands of energy, when it needs to use available energy to avoid situations that may make dangerous demands on the energy budget, or when it needs to use energy to initiate situations that are likely to balance or supplement the energy budget overall.
So pain tells us when our prediction is particularly inaccurate: when conceptual reality doesn’t match sensory information in a spatial location, that discrepancy often comes back to the interoceptive network as a located demand for effort and/or attention. Sometimes that pain demands that we take notice and make changes to the system itself: repair and extend muscle capacity, repair skin, strengthen lungs, etc. Sometimes it demands that we take notice of what is different in the world from our previous expectations. Sometimes it’s a bit of both. But that demand always needs to be weighed against the other upcoming energy demands of the overall system.
Quoting Pop
Well, I’d prefer if you made use of the square brackets to show that you’ve altered my quote, but it’s a useful approach. The reason I describe it this way is because this is a general description that applies to all living systems - most are unaware of a ‘current emotional state’, and so have no intention to ‘transform’ it. They are aware only of ongoing attention and effort requirements and availability.
The difference is self-consciousness, which requires a more complex relational structure. All conscious systems consist of a five-dimensional integrated system of information, and evolve according to the capacity of their self-organisation process to transform potential information from their accumulative experience of the world and ongoing affective state into an accurate prediction of effort and attention allocation. It isn’t just about pursuing a more pleasant affective state, but one that makes efficient use of available energy. Because pleasant experiences that demand high levels of attention (like sex) can consume vast amounts of energy, which may compromise the system long term. And pleasant experiences of low arousal (like drug use) compromise the capacity of the system to seek and acquire the energy needed to sustain itself.
Quoting Pop
Here’s the interesting thing: I never suggested that a forest could be contained or described - but that it can be understood as an ever-changing whole. By the time we have catalogued its contents, we would need to go back through and catalogue the changes, and so on. You can characterise the physical boundary of a forest or its trees, animals, etc, but once that’s done, it will almost instantly be inaccurate.
This reminds me of Kant’s aesthetics. It is the capacity for an aesthetic experience to transcend any attempt to subsume it under ‘object’ or ‘concept’ that renders it aesthetically pleasing. In pursuing pure beauty, our awareness must transcend any concept or thought of ‘pleasure’, and instead to delight in the possibilities, engaging our faculties of imagination and understanding without being constrained by judgement. The sublime can have a similar effect, regardless of valence. A maximally unpleasant experience would hypothetically transcend any known concept (terror, horror, etc), but interestingly has nothing to do with pain.
But I digress. To understand is not to constrain, define or describe within a concept, but to relate to its possibilities as a particular and variable conceptual system ourselves. To learn not just how I relate to the forest now, but how that is likely to change over time, how different conceptual systems may relate to the forest differently to me, and how both the forest and any conceptual system may be altered by each observation, measurement or other interactive experience, whether or not either is consciously aware. This is how we develop more integrated relational structures with reality, minimising overall prediction error (pain, humility, loss and lack) and aiming for pure, confident interrelation.
We understand the weather not by constraining, defining or describing it or its individual elements, but by formulating, testing and refining probabilistic relations between events. The idea is not to aim for certainty.
I’m certainly no Guru myself. I’ve found that there are many ways to approach the same meaning from a limited and flawed perspective. I think discussions such as these help both of us reach a broader understanding, even if we never see eye to eye.
Yes, and consciousness unlike simpler topics , like free will, is complicated and multifactorial. You and me, are like trees, we agree largely on the fundamentals - the trunk, but we branch out in different ways. This is not a flaw, as there isn't one solution, and ultimately any solution is viable so long as the tree survives.
When I first seriously started studying consciousness, I started with microbial life. It seemed DNA information created an amoeba, and an amoeba subsequently expressed this DNA information, by being alive and through its self organization, in relation to internal information and external information. Why would it bother was the immediate and overwhelming question - what a waste of energy! Of course it has no choice. It is not self aware and it is biased to continue to live. So it seems RNA and DNA insert this bias, into life, and hence when it comes to the question of to be or not to be, the answer is not rational, but biased to be.
So I concluded life is biased to be, and a bias is not rational information, but emotional information - an aversion to death and an attraction to life. It is a fundamental force present in all living creatures, including the ones without brains. So emotion occurs fundamentally ( emotional - information ), it is the essential ingredient of self organization as it provides impetus to organize, and is present long before the ability to branch out and create complicated expressions of consciousness. However , being fundamental, it is present in all subsequent expressions of consciousness, as the force providing impetus to self organization.
Quoting Possibility
What is missing from this, in my opinion, is the force providing impetus to the self organization. Why bother? To say survival is insufficient. Why should something want to survive? Particularly something that can not even consider the question? I again apologize for altering your original statement.
It is easy to get tangled up in the higher order expressions of consciousness. I think if I tried I would be there long after the cows came home. It seems much simpler to call them expressions of self organization and lump them all together, and then get on with the task of WHY they occur. From my paradigm I can do that, but I imagine this would be an impossibility for other dualist / materialistic paradigms.
You seem to have a good system of dealing with the complexity by dividing it up into different dimensions. I have always tried to understand things from first principles as far as is possible. I deal with the complex by simplifying it, resolving it in simple form, and then growing the solution in complexity. These are two different expressions of consciousness, one is not necessarily better then another, and together they are better then on their own.
Quoting Possibility
The PPS is not set in stone as I have conceived it. Pain / pleasure as an emotional gradient would work for my consciousness, but for yours it may be constructed in a more complicated way. It is an emotional, or affective, gradient - If that better suits you. What is set in stone is that life chooses to live, and this suggests an emotional / affective gradient at play.
Quoting Possibility - my bad, sorry.
The answer is only biased to be for those who are. The proportion of living to non-living matter in the universe is staggeringly small. Likewise, the proportion of matter to anti- or dark matter, the proportion of multi-cellular to single-celled life, etc. The impetus is present in all matter, but it is comparatively weak. You have to admit, by your own habits, that we are more inclined to consolidate than to collaborate, particularly if energy/information is perceived as limited, unattainable. But the impetus persists, nevertheless.
An amoeba is aware of interaction: it can distinguish between a persistent, semi-stable state and the changes that are not this state. Initially, an animate cell will always prefer this persistent state over changes, and will self-organise to maintain or return to it from every change. But this impetus to consolidate barely counts as ‘life’. The process of natural selection quickly favours those whose ‘unwanted’ changes result in increased activity (dominance) or information diversity (reproduction) as much as stability. So, is this “attraction to life” an impetus to consolidate - to ignore, isolate and exclude - or is it to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, despite the risks?
When you do ‘grow the system in complexity’, you need to be conscious of the overwhelming urge to consolidate through ignoring, isolating or excluding information - it will always hold you back from being able to explain the complex diversity that exists. Plus, each advancement in capacity requires a surge in energy/information that transcends the current system’s processing capacity, rendering it insufficient.
The bias to be, is the fundamental information that creates consciousness.Without it there could not be consciousness or life. It is the essential element that creates a self interested process of self organisation. It remains central to consciousness / self organisation, and is present in every instance of self organization as the primal consideration relative to all other information. What are the consequences of this information to me? How do I self organize in relation to this information? These are the fundamentals of consciousness. In this setting a response is formed. These responses are all expressions of consciousness, and can be lumped together and considered singularly as such. They are endlessly variable and open ended. They all work so long as the organism survives. They are the branches of the trees, or they are the cultural differences, or different philosophical beliefs. You have characterized these expressions as - " awareness, connection and collaboration, despite the risks" - these are valid expressions of consciousness, but equally valid is the response to ignore, isolate, and exclude. It just depends on the organism and the information surrounding it, and the resources the organism has for dealing with the situation.
We can divide consciousness into two components. The fundamental component is a self preserving ( biased ) process of self organization relative to external and internal information. And then it's expression. Which are ideas and action. Expressions of consciousness are not the same as consciousness itself. They give some insight into the consciousness that created them, but only if you understand the self interested process underlying them. Fundamentally the task of brain consciousness is very simple - firstly provide a solution that allows me to survive, secondly make it as pleasant as possible.
Philosophical Zombies lack the bias to be, so they can not be conscious or alive. They are indifferent to the effect of the information surrounding them. They are not Affected. It is all the same to them whether they live or die, or experience pain or pleasure. But nothing is all the same to living creatures because everything has an Affect on them. Thus Affected they are spurned to thought and action. The base all thought bounces off is the emotional gradient I call the PPS, but you would better understand it as an Affected mental state. I would call it an emotional whole body state.
All of life is informed by RNA and DNA, and this bias to be, being a fundamental necessity of consciousness and life, would be fundamental code shared by all of life. So all of life, including brainless life, would posses a bias to be as an emotional body state. This creates consciousness and life. There would be no need to self organize without a bias to be. There would be no emotional impetus to do so.
The evidence for this is not conclusive, but the evidence against is non existent.
Self-interest is NOT central to consciousness. This is a misunderstanding of consciousness - from a limited perspective of self-consciousness, reduced to a ‘survival’ binary, and assumed as the ‘immovable centre’. It is inaccurate to claim its presence as the primal consideration in every instance of self-organisation. If this were the case, then heroic self-sacrifice in war, seppuku, self-immolation and other ritualistic or altruistic suicide acts would not have become an aspect of any culture, for example. Neither would any of the many and diverse mating behaviours have developed to prioritise diversification and only partial reproduction of genetic information over self-survival. No amount of neo-Darwinian apologetics can show that any of these instances of self-organisation have ‘self-interest’ as their primal consideration.
I understand that you have deliberately narrowed your focus between life and human-level consciousness, but we couldn’t hope to have developed an accurate understanding of Earth in relation to the Solar System simply from our perspective looking up from Earth, I see no reason to expect an accurate understanding of consciousness in relation to life, let alone to the universe, from our conscious perspective. Copernicus had to first imagine that the Earth was moveable, and second that it was not the centre.
Kant proposed a ‘Copernican Turn’ was necessary to more clearly understand our phenomenal position in reality - in my view, at the time he wrote it, he required at least two: first, the variability and de-centring of humanity from theories of life and the unfolding universe; and second, the moveability and de-centring of human experience from theories of consciousness and existence. Darwin set the first in motion, but we can’t seem to get our heads around the second...yet.
The scientific method in making sense of the world is to imagine the possibilities, calculate the most probable explanations, and then test them against empirical evidence, adjusting it for accuracy and refining our final explanation to account for anomalies in each instance of results. The problem with this method is that it assumes our bias only comes into play when we interpret the results. But quantum physics shows that our bias affects every step, and is most significant in how we select and test probable explanations from imaginable possibilities. Reductionism has always attempted to remove this bias by consolidating to a common denominator, but all this does is limit the process from the start. We need to imagine a perspective beyond the bias, just as Copernicus and Darwin did, and even Max Planck.
Quoting Pop
This is another misunderstanding from within. The pursuit of pleasure has the capacity to override a self-preserving bias - ask anyone who’s suffered from intense addiction. So your last sentence cannot possibly explain the task of brain consciousness. Expressions of consciousness are not secondary - any bias to consolidate (to ignore, isolate or exclude) is contingent upon awareness, connection and collaboration at the most fundamental levels of existence.
Quoting Pop
P-zombies are a thought experiment - they’re ‘not alive’ only because you say they’re not. But a p-zombie gives all the necessary indications that it IS alive - that’s the point. Using your own description of p-zombies as evidence to support your own argument is circular.
And you misunderstand me entirely if you think I’ve been referring to affect as a purely mental state. Interoception is self-organisation at the dimensional level up from DNA. Affect is information about the state of the entire organism. I don’t make a Cartesian distinction at this level between ‘mind’ and ‘body’, because I don’t think it helps our understanding. We are monists - ‘mental states’ needn’t feature in this discussion.
Quoting Pop
Consciousness is informed by interoception , in the same way that life is informed by DNA. Affect is irreducible, continually updated ‘bias-to-be’ information within that self-organisation. Interoception interrelates on an ongoing basis with our conceptual reality to manifest the future conscious subject based on the sum of the system’s experience, rendered as conceptual reality. DNA is a 3D rendering of the system’s 4D information, and interrelates with a different DNA structure to manifest a future life that more accurately expresses its ongoing and variable relation to the fundamental existence/non-existence binary: its ‘bias to be’.
Your ‘bias to be’ seems biased to prioritise consolidation, reductionism. You should recognise this as a tendency to ignore, isolate and exclude information that doesn’t suit your theory. I have tried to show that what you refer to as a ‘bias to be’ is a dynamic, unresolvable relation at the base binary of all existence: to exist or not exist. All matter (living or non-living) draws an arbitrary line to consolidate its minimum existence, but must continually express a capacity beyond that: to strive for awareness, connection and collaboration. This minimum existence can never be reached - instead the system will reach zero point energy, before which the question to exist or not exist must be answered anew, requiring that last surge of energy in its expression either way.
For an integrated system, the expression to not exist is not simply dropping to a lower level of consciousness, because most elements of the system have sacrificed their lower-level consolidation. A blood cell, for instance, maintains its 3D relational structure only as long as it is part of a living (4D) system. We can artificially manage the appearance of a system from the perspective of the blood cell, but its 3D structure will cease to exist as such in isolation from a suitable system. So a blood cell is committed to the minimum existence of a suitable 4D system, regardless of integration.
We can sustain this appearance of a living system, but not the appearance of consciousness. Consciousness develops from a living system that is aware, connected and collaborating with its developing offspring enough to continue re-structuring this future life into infancy. From there, the more plasticity built into the DNA, the more adaptable the future life becomes to circumstances its parents didn’t anticipate prior to birth. Eventually, the living system develops an internal, dual-integrated interoceptive network - similar to the double-helix structure of DNA, only at a higher level of complexity: half generated from the information the system has about itself, and the other half rendered from the information that system has about another system, with which it interacts. Reproduction aligns two halves of different DNA instructions to form a whole 3D structure of effort and attention instructions that would hypothetically develop a more accurate and efficient life in a 4D system. The interoceptive network continually re-aligns two different 4D predictions of valence-arousal to form a whole 4D structure of effort and attention instructions that would hypothetically develop a more accurate and efficient consciousness (in a 5D system).
Effort and attention instruction is energy/information, and however much of it is quantifiable, there is always some aspect of it that is purely relational (and vice versa), in accordance with the uncertainty principle. An accurate description of consciousness cannot be reduced to emotion-information, anymore than we can make an accurate calculation of quantum reality: only where, when and how much to direct our effort and attention.
We incur pain for our children, and groups we identify with.
"Self-interest is NOT central to consciousness." disagrees with "The problem with this method is that it assumes our bias only comes into play when we interpret the results. But quantum physics shows that our bias affects every step, and is most significant in how we select and test probable explanations from imaginable possibilities".
I strongly agree with the second point. Living things share common DNA, and they also have a bias to be. The Bias to be, would be the first bit of DNA information shared by all life, as without a bias to be there would be no need to be. This bias is the central thing preserved in all DNA. It is immortal, and life is it's vehicle. My bias to be has existed, in my lineage, since the beginning of life, and it is the deepest most reason for all my decisions. The bias to be, being a bias, is emotional information, and emotion is what drives us. A bias to be is the central consideration in all instances of self organization relative to internal and external information. Instances of consciousness vary. One instance of consciousness effects the bias to be strongly, whilst another instance effects the bias to be weakly.
Where the bias to be is effected strongly, might the Affect be a pleasure? And where it is effected weakly, might the Affect be a neutral or moderate feeling? If so, can you see how a spectrum might form? In considering this you may notice Affect can be further resolved.
To explore this requires the ability to introspect, and I have noticed you posses this ability in regards to your comments on pain, but what is central to consciousness might be different. It took me a long time to get in, but I posses this do or die dogged stubbornness. For two months I tried without success, it was like gnawing away at a billiard ball, and then finally I managed to get a purchase and have been inching away ever since. At its core is a simple self interested algorithm, but you need to discover this for yourself - to prove it for yourself. Eventually I will develop the theory along these lines, once I learn a bit more and test some of my expectations.
The way you have put it together is a good description that is not entirely in conflict with how I see it. From my perspective, you say the introspective network is the base and can not be resolved any further, so you can not make any further connections and leave it at that. I say the network resolves to feelings which resolve further to points on an emotional gradient. I further link this gradient to the first information in DNA, and note it is biased, or emotional information. It being fundamental information, I make the connection that all subsequent information is emotional.
The way I see it:
Biased / emotional information in DNA informs life, which possesses consciousness, and only expresses and propagates consciousness, in the form of emotional information - through DNA ( offspring ) and expressions of consciousness. Expressions of consciousness are all formed in an emotionally charged setting, as they preserve the bias to be, so are emotional information. All incoming information is emotional information ( information and qualia ), which is processed by a reasonable brain system, but in an emotional setting of a biased consciousness. Hence have consequences that are either painful, neutral, or pleasurable. The output is a self preserving response, hence emotional information. As you say, it is arbitrary to separated emotion from information.
May the best interpretation win :smile:
It only appears to disagree because you assume the bias has a linear structure at the level of life, and a binary structure at the level of DNA, but this is not the case. Quantum physics shows that the bias is present as a binary structure at the level of matter/anti-matter. At the level of consciousness, this same bias is irreducibly four-dimensional. But you believe this bias is fixed on ‘to be’, in opposition to ‘not to be’ - whereas I recognise it as an unresolvable relation that is always present as ‘the question’, like Shakespeare says: “whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them.”
Quoting Pop
What is central to consciousness is the question of life, and consciousness is the expression of an attempted answer, in all its diversity of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion over many interactions - not from a singular bias to be, but from the irreducible diversity of life. DNA has never instructed just one way to be, even it is simplest form.
Quoting Pop
What it seems you’re resolving here is ‘emotion’, not affect and not an introspected construction of the network. Emotion is a conceptual construction of phenomenal ‘feeling’: what remains when all rational concepts have been accounted for intellectually. It is a purely idealistic notion, with no reference to external reality, let alone to DNA. Emotion is a predictive pattern of experience that relates as ‘feelings’ to other conceptual structures such as ‘objects’, ‘thoughts’ and ‘memories’. We can resolve it however we want to in theory - but in practice, it must always be translated back into affect. The network then converts affect into ongoing action of the organism: a distribution of energy as effort and attention, no further reduction required.
I’ll admit that your interpretation sounds plausible from a purely intellectual perspective - most idealist arguments do. But its application to what exists beyond mind fails to account for a host of anomalies and contradictions in human experience alone. Until you can do that, it’s no more credible than apologetics from creationists.
Quoting Pop
Your need to add a ‘neutral’ position indicates a complexity that is unaccounted for: an instance that is neither painful nor pleasurable is beyond the perspective of the value structure - its quality is infinite, unmeasurable. If, as you say, the output depends entirely on this emotion-information, then a neutral consequence results in NO response. But this is inconsistent with empirical observation. I would also argue that the brain system as a whole is anything but ‘reasonable’ - watch your dualistic notions here, particularly in distinguishing between ‘information and qualia’. If all is information, then you’ll have to explain why you need to make such a distinction.
Quoting Pop
I’m not trying to win - I’m just trying to refine my own theory in relation to different perspectives, and to offer challenges and suggestions to help you refine yours. Mine is a long way from perfect - I know that because there are a number of members here with whom I struggle to formulate much in the way of coherent discussion points, whether I agree with them or not. They challenge my thinking, and provide plenty of topics for me to look up, though.
I have never liked the term affect. It is ambiguous in common usage and it is conflated, it seems, in scientific usage with different interpretations by different groups. Emotion is much simpler and unambiguous.
Wikipedia: "Affect, in psychology, refers to the underlying experience of feeling, emotion or mood."
This is the way I understand it. In the time I worked in Drug and alcohol rehab, we referred to clients as having an affect, that referred to their demeanor as a result of underlying emotions or feelings, but sometimes it was a contrived affect, and in this case it was a communication.
The way you and Barrett understand it is atypical in my neck of the woods, so I am happy to stay away from it.
I don’t know why you choose Barrett, a relatively minor materialist academic, over other monistic theories of emotion. Of course, some of the other researchers are older and they don't promote themselves all over the place, but you know, we are no closer to understanding emotions in science today then we were in their day. I have not provided citations in my theory, but of course I have them. Very little of it is actual original thought, it is mostly an integration of the work of others. I rely on Derek Denton's interpretation that emotion is the underlying force that gives impetus to instinctual behavior. I go one step further , I say emotion is inseparable from information - this is a testable construction - It can be negated by providing one instance of information that is unemotional in some way. I cannot find such an instance.
I distinguish information and qualia to highlight that they are both present in information, not as you have interpreted it.
You do understand, don't you, that if emotion is present in DNA code then emotion is present fundamentally in all of life as the force providing impetus to it? DNA is emotional-information - it provides the instruction set of how to construct an emotional gradient that is analogue, not binary as you assume. Binary would be meaningless.
Gradients in the brain, and in biology in general, have been well documented. Some are minor, but others are major. If they turn out to be emotional my theory would be validated.
I present a complete theory, which is in parts testable, and it fits - both in the big picture, and in explaining why we have consciousness, so it explains the hard problem. As we come to understand molecular biology better, we are seeing enormous complexity. My theory accounts for this. How does Barrett and yourself account for the below? It is at this level that you have to construct a picture, because the story of this will be the story of us.
Barrett’s theory is constructionist - she successfully refutes essentialist assumptions made in classical emotion theory, which claim from intuitive and unconscious relational behaviour and historically misappropriated information that all ‘emotions’ must therefore be instinctual, and that each ‘emotion’, from pain to happiness, comes from an essence or fingerprint that is universal and identifiable across all human experience. Yet no such fingerprint can be found. Her use of the term ‘affect’ makes a distinction between these psychological emotion concepts and the more general, unprocessed bodily feeling you refer to as ‘emotion-information’ because her research straddles both psychology and neuroscience. You claim we are no closer to understanding emotions, yet Barrett’s research and constructionist theories are providing new insight into anxiety disorders and autism, among other areas.
The classical theory of emotion is based on a neo-Darwinian assumption that all intuitive behaviour must be survival-related in essence. Barrett’s theory is based on research that shows complex intuitive behaviour patterns are constructed from much simpler instructions, which she then claims are survival-related. This doesn’t conflict with Denton’s interpretation, that I can see, except that what he refers to as a ‘force’ is, in Barrett’s theory, inseparable from information, as you say.
Quoting Pop
So, ‘information’ is present in information, and qualia is present in information? Do you see the confusion? You are referring to a concept as a component of itself. Either everything is information (in which case qualia IS information), or there is information and then there is qualia (a dualist notion). You can’t have it both ways.
Quoting Pop
An ‘emotion gradient’ is two-dimensional: you’re suggesting that those two dimensions are pain-pleasure in relation to a degree of strength (?), but you’re not clear on the structure at the complexity level of human emotional experience. And you’ve based this on a 200-year old model that pre-dates neuroscience. I have suggested that these dimensions are a pleasant-unpleasant valence in relation to arousal value: a two-dimensional structure of relational reductionism that is well-documented and backed by neuroscience in relation to psychology. But you reject the neuroscience, seemingly because the overall interpretation appears biased towards a materialist argument, and challenges the essentialist assumptions of psychology in relation to classical emotion theories and idealism.
The binary I’m referring to, by the way, is your ‘bias to be’. You’re suggesting it is fundamentally a bias (towards one bit of information rather than another), which suddenly and without explanation becomes a set of instructions in DNA to construct an emotion gradient within a four-dimensional system. I have suggested an elegant structure of evolution in complexity from quantum physics to consciousness that enables this, but it seems you won’t consider it either because it, too, appears biased towards a materialist argument, and challenges idealist assumptions.
Let me assure you that my arguments are designed to challenge the assumptions of BOTH materialism AND idealism - your bias to consolidate your own position is colouring your perspective here. According to ontic structural realism (SEP), ‘it’s relations all the way down’, relational structure is ontologically subsistent, and individual ‘objects’ are merely heuristic devices used by agents to orient themselves in regions of spacetime, and to construct approximate representations of the world.
Quoting Pop
Your theory is incomplete - you’ve said so yourself. It explains nothing except how consciousness appears to a conscious subject. Other conscious subjects are likely to agree - that only shows the extent to which their experience relates. But your ‘theory’ is a shared expression of consciousness, not an explanation of it. You cannot explain the hard problem with an expression that is bound by it.
Lastly, the video tells me nothing that I haven’t accounted for: you will need to elaborate. I will admit that my understanding of molecular biology is limited, but I’m certainly not denying its complexity, nor the influence of qualitative relations at that level. So I’m unsure what this video challenges.
She states that emotions are created in the brain. This would be incompatible with Denton's view and your statement : " I’m certainly not denying its complexity, nor the influence of qualitative relations at that level".
Cellular complexity reveals a very sophisticated process of self organization ( consciousness ). I would reckon it rivals, and in some respects exceeds, extracellular brain consciousness, particularly in relation to protein synthesis. Acknowledging this and acknowledging that emotions play a role, I believe, is key to understanding consciousness
Quoting Possibility
Yes, that is how I understand it. Information has qualitative and quantitative aspects packaged into one unit. It is created in an emotionally charged setting, or a biased setting, both for animate and inanimate matter, and so reflects this charge, but the charge and information is not miscible, rather it exists as an emulsion, and we can unentangle some of the charge rationally, but only in an emotionally charged setting of our own mind / belief system / sanity. So this process can unentangle some of the charge, but also adds extra charge to the information. So it is always biased or affected information. It is an exceedingly difficult process to articulate and account for all the complexity - it almost requires its own theory.
In the end you get this emotional-information construction which can be negatable, by providing an instance of organic unemotional information - which I believe is logically impossible, since everything is in a process of self interested self organization, so any information it creates will reflect this.
I then applied this to the big bang theory and, as previously explained, concluded emotional - information causes the universe to collapse in on itself and self organize, and all of its components likewise are self organizing, and we are the most self organized. So, according to my model, self organization = consciousness, and emotional-information creates it. The P.Zombie argument would supports this, but I have other logical arguments.
Expressions of consciousness may be able to indirectly create unemotional information - I'm undecided, and still working on this.
Quoting Possibility
A bias to be is not binary. A bias is an aversion to something and an attraction to its opposite. It has two extreme points and then all the points in between. It is analogue. We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. All life shares common DNA, and the bias to be must be among this genetic information. When I have an attraction or an aversion to someone - a bias - I'm feeling an emotion. No reason is necessary other then they have attractive or repulsive qualities, relative to my self organization. This provides impetus to behavior, and all behavior must have impetus, whether it be on cellular or human scale. Emotion is the force that creates any process of self organization or consciousness, so emotion must be present in cellular organization. If a cell has a bias to be, then it has emotion. This is the logic of it. How it actually manifests itself physically I don't know, If that is what you are asking. I imagine it is not a singular thing but belongs to all the component parts in some way.
When I affirm my theory I do not necessarily dismiss yours. I also suspect there is quantum complexity contributing to all this, however I'm trying to put the logic together from things that we already know.
Quoting Possibility
I don't entirely disagree with this. As an idealist though, ultimately there are systems of self organization that experience reality through those systems of self organization. It seems, you try to build a relational big picture of reality that everybody and everything is subsumed by. Whilst I say there is no reality other then personal interpretations of reality, which we must communicate in order to agree on, as we do now, but I agree with your relational interpretation of it.
I disagree - If you read what I wrote, I mentioned that Barrett uses the term ‘affect’ to distinguish between ‘emotions’ of everyday language, as concepts constructed in the brain, and your idea of ‘emotion-information’ - what Denton confusingly refers to as ‘emotion’ (not to be confused with ‘emotions’) - as a relational structure consisting of qualitative information at a bio-chemical level.
Quoting Pop
I see this as a misunderstanding from the dualist assumption that ‘extracellular brain consciousness’ is something different to (or even isolated from) this complex cellular self-organisation to which you’re referring. Simpler organisms demonstrate complex self-organisation at a cellular level, while more complex organisms also self-organise within integrated, multi-cellular systems. You’re effectively trying to isolate some arbitrary concept of ‘brain consciousness’ not only from any relation to cellular structures, but also from our integrated multi-cellular system, and then claiming it isn’t as complex as cellular-level consciousness. It’s a whole other level of complexity.
I do agree that ‘emotion-information’ (quantitative information) plays a role. ‘Emotions’, however, are constructed in the brain. Understanding the difference, I believe, is key to understanding consciousness.
Quoting Pop
I think what you refer to as ‘an emotionally charged setting’ IS that qualitative information: the relational structure of reality. Qualitative information manifests as this relational structure (matter); quantitative information manifests as energy. Not charge AND information (again with the dualism?). It isn’t just a matter of unentangling - it’s about understanding how all information interrelates. To ‘unentangle’ is to ignore, isolate or exclude the relations that give the information its structure, tipping the bias. The more ‘unentangled’ the information appears, the more biased/affected.
Quoting Pop
Well, I dispute that all self-organisation is self-interested, and I’ve already given examples that refute this. The way I see it, any integrated system of matter is either self-interested (consolidating) OR self-organising (increasing awareness, connection and collaboration), but never both simultaneously. Interaction with unattributed qualitative information poses the basic question: self-interest or self-organise? The answer is expressed in consciousness.
I don’t believe emotion-information is limited by logical possibility. This is where quantum physics challenges the way we structure logical reality. Kant’s aesthetics suggest that ‘emotion-information’ structures our imagination and understanding. But I will try to make more sense with this section when I’ve had some sleep...
I don't really consider myself a real academic but find your discussion of quantum physics as a challenge to logical possibilities as an extremely interesting one. I have read David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' and think that this points to dimensions of existence underlying the physical universe and perhaps these are what Jung spoke about as the collective unconscious.
I also read some of Stephen Hawking's ideas, although I do not understand the maths and I have sympathy with the ideas of the physicist Fritjof Capra. The important element, I believe , is the way in which these thinkers embrace the unknown.
All of this leads a way open to the fullest view of multidimensional reality, including the views of the mystics. It points to a fuller view of reality than the one adhered to by most scientists and it is an important area for philosophy because most of the prevailing paradigms are limited.
In a way, I have spent time on new age fringes where there is so much way out speculation. But there are interesting areas including the idea of junk DNA and parallel dimensions. I do believe that this can be an interesting area of exploration for philosophy, touched upon by transpersonal thinkers, including Ken Wilber.
I think the strongest insight of my theory is that emotions orient us in our personally constructed reality relative to the information surrounding us - as per the instance of consciousness in the OP. Do you agree with this, and how dose it square with Barrett's view?
Quoting Possibility
My thoughts have very little control of my biology. I am not involved in that aspect of self organization at all. Extracellular consciousness is distinct and separate but linked to the whole via the PPS, in my view. Each of our organs are specialized, but linked to the whole via consciousness - each performing a specialist role. I think if we could visualize human self organization it would not be a perfect sphere, but a lumpy whole similar to a protein - unified in a best effort evolutionary manner. I think you have overstated my claims. However, simulating the basic pancreatic trypsin inhibitor over the course of a millisecond took a supercomputer about 100 days. This sort of complexity was already in existence a billion years ago when animal life first arose. An evolving brain, initially a weak system, would have to evolve on top of this superior underlying system of self organization.
Quoting Possibility
Have you mixed up your qualitative and quantitative here? The way I see it, incoming information has two aspects to it , the quantitative ( reasonable / facts ) and qualitative ( emotional ) aspects to it. Reason can distinguish between the two to some extent, but can in no way dissect and reasonably interact with the emotional aspect - you can not describe red. You must feel it! The emotional aspect of consciousness belongs to the cellular consciousness, I believe.
To unentangle is to analyze, not ignore or exclude.
Quoting Possibility
Neither do I. This is the fascinating thing about cellular consciousness - that such complexity evolved without a reasonable brain.
Quoting Possibility
Self organization is, by definition, self interested. It is organization relative to self. This dose not exclude collaboration, awareness and connection, nor self sacrifice for the greater good. We self organize relative to external information, through a belief system, that exists and has evolved in a collective system of self organization,
Emotions are part of our ‘constructed conceptual reality’. Within an amorphous system of information in the brain, concepts and objects make sense of everything in relation to the ‘conceptual self’, and emotion concepts in particular make sense of this conceptual self in relation to everything else. From this construction, an ongoing prediction event (instruction for effort and attention) is manufactured for the organism, open to refinement and adjustment relative to ‘actual’ reality through the interoceptive network.
Affect, on the other hand, is part of our ongoing ‘actual’ reality. Within this system of interrelated biochemical events, it is affect that continually orients the organism relative to the changing state of internal and external sensory information of the moment, aligning with the brain’s ongoing prediction of effort and attention its own ongoing assessment of arousal and valence. It is a continual dialogue between this biochemically constructed state and the brain’s conceptually constructed prediction that results in instructional changes to the system’s four-dimensional self-organisation in relation to the world, as well as structural changes to our five-dimensional conceptual reality (including emotion concepts).
We are aware of instructional changes (through the interoceptive network), but most of us are only vaguely aware of our conceptual system as such - we notice changes to this in relation to ‘other’ conceptual systems, and so the process of orienting the system (as a five-dimensional structure within a six-dimensional reality) continues at a broader level of awareness...
Quoting Pop
Well, we’re in disagreement there. Your thoughts have a greater impact on your biochemical state than you realise. It doesn’t take much effort to call to mind a memory that can raise your stress levels, or to pretend you’re laying calmly on a quiet sandy beach and allow this thought to change your affective state. It’s about collaboration, not control. Consciousness is a whole-system, integrated level of self-organisation, not a mechanical structure with distinct and separate parts that operate in isolation, and battle for supremacy. Specialised does not mean isolated. A brain does not evolve ‘on top of’ biochemical self-organisation, but in full collaboration with it - a give-and-take process that a supercomputer (or other purely logical system) is unable to grasp.
Quoting Pop
Not at all. Reason can only distinguish between quantitative and qualitative information by quantifying as much information as it can, building predictable structures out of these quanta with probabilistic qualitative relations, and then attempting to isolate or ignore the rest as external to logic. So the qualitative aspects you’re referring to as ‘emotional’ are simply what the brain tries to make sense of outside of logic. You can ‘feel’ warmth on your skin, but you can also quantify temperature, just as you can quantify and construct a probabilistic experience of ‘red’. Qualitative (relational) information is employed as much in reason as quantitative (analytical) information - it just isn’t referred to as ‘emotional’.
Quoting Pop
To analyse is to parse - to break something down into identifiable component parts (quanta). Reconstruction is optional in analysis, and so the relational structure (qualitative information) that enables that something to operate as it does is irrelevant - ignored or excluded - until one discovers something that consists of the same components, yet is not the same in operation. Only then does qualitative relation become relevant - but only to the extent that we can predictably differentiate between their operations, forming two conceptual structures. Barrett uses an example of muffins and cupcakes in her book that seems relevant here. How do we get from the same set of ingredients to two different results? And how would you determine this organisational distinction without any instructions? I’ll give you a tip: the answer isn’t to focus on the lowest common denominator.
Quoting Pop
But you’re talking about self-organisation in systems that have no awareness of ‘self’, so how can this be ‘interest in self’? These systems only organise what we refer to as ‘self’ because nothing else exists for them to organise. ‘Self’ for them is the universe: everything they’re aware of. Nothing else exists for the system in which they can be disinterested. This is a common misconception of self-organisation, which runs us into trouble when we use the term in relation to consciousness. We observe other animals and their interest only in what is relevant to their living system, and call it ‘self-interest’ because we identify a ‘self’ component within a conceptual system of which we are aware. But most animals are not. Yet we presume this to be a preference or bias towards the ‘self’, even though it’s a bias simply towards ‘something’ existing rather than nothing.
So, as humans we justify our own self-interest as ‘primal’ - the common denominator we share with animals. But it’s just an excuse to ignore our self-conscious capacity to be interested in all matter, living and non-living, and to ‘self-organise’ as a global ecosystem, at least.
If you believe DNA is biased to be, then this would be the fingerprint to refute Barrett's argument.
A bias is emotional information. If DNA is biased, then all life is biased. Emotion is the essential element that all thought bounces off to create self organization. Without it there is no impetus to self organize, as per a P.Zombie. This argument applies to all life.
Pain is an emotion, slightly different for everybody, there are gradations of pain, the absence of pain has a quality different to pain. It is an emotional gradient. Some people hardly feel it, others feel it intensely and choose death in preference to a life of pain.
Quoting Possibility
Come on, you know what I'm talking about - what role do you play in protein synthesis, or immune response, or all the other biological processes which we are not even aware of? Extracellular consciousness is all about extracellular self organization, whilst intracellular consciousness takes care of intracellular self organisation. They agree on the PPS.
Quoting Possibility
Please quantify and construct a probabilistic experience of red for me. I think you will find it is impossible with reason alone.
I have read over our long and interesting conversation, and I think it really boils down to whether or not you accept DNA is biased to be. I think it is logical to say that it is, and from this understanding I construct an algorithm for consciousness / self organization that works like a self loading mouse trap.
This unifies extracellular, and intracellular consciousness. I don't think this is a possibility from brain centric conceptions of consciousness, and ideas that emotions are created in the brain. Of course brain function integrates information and translates it to emotion, it is multifunctional, but emotions themselves are something fundamental, and exist in some form in all of life, including brainless life. This is the logic of it, and it is an impossible assertion to make for a materialistic academic, as it is so problematic for the western lifestyle in so many different ways. But, I believe, If you are not entirely self interested then it is something worth considering, as it instills a respect and responsibility for all other life that is not generally found in the materialistic paradigm.
I’m thinking perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by a ‘fingerprint’ here. The classical claim is that each instance of emotion is identifiable as a particular type of emotion (say, anger) rather than another by certain biochemical or behavioural markers, because ‘anger’, for instance, apparently has an essence. A ‘bias to be’ refers to the presence of qualitative information, in the biochemical structure of RNA/DNA, that constructs a living, temporally-structured existence only from its relation to another biochemical structure of DNA - at the expense of its own consolidation. DNA is biased ‘to be’ inasmuch as all of existence strikes a tentative structural balance between consolidating and relating.
Nothing exists that is biased to NOT be. Everything expresses a bias simply by existing, which is contingent upon a binary relation to non-existence. The essential element for any kind of organising is relation - without it, there is no qualitative information, no structure - this argument applies to all existence.
A ‘bias to be’ could be observed in a living organism as consolidation (living by maintenance) OR as relation (living by adaptability) - but it’s really BOTH. One without the other results in the non-existence of life, either way. In a conscious organism, consolidation/maintenance isn’t about survival/life as a base, but about experience - being adaptable is now the lower limit of this bias, encoded in their DNA, and the relational aspect is experiencing by variability. A living organism is defined by a bias to ‘be’, a conscious organism by a bias to ‘become’ - striking a variable balance between consolidating and relating.
Quoting Pop
Pain is an interoception that consists of qualitative relations, but I think it’s more than an emotional gradient. Pain has an unpleasant quality and a variable intensity that contributes to affect, but it also has spatio-temporal qualities that enable it to be described as sharp or dull, sudden or gradual, localised or moving, etc. This is more complex than a gradient. An absence of pain can be experienced as unpleasant and arousing, and even intense pain can be described as calming or pleasant (although these are often dismissed as pathological). Pain has no quantitative information, and cannot be described, measured or observed objectively - only as a relational structure. In other words, it isn’t possible to consolidate pain. It reduces to the bias that defines one’s existence, but that’s not what pain is, objectively speaking. At its absolute base existence, pain is a system’s awareness of entropy: missing information.
Quoting Pop
Apparently I don’t. Are you saying that protein synthesis and immune response are examples of self-organisation at an intracellular level - with no connection to the multicellular system structures except through pain-pleasure?
Quoting Pop
There - did you just experience red in the shape of your name? That probabilistic experience is quantified and constructed by the website’s code. It’s just a hashtag and six number/letter combination.
Quoting Pop
Again with the logic. Bias at the level of consciousness is a complex, five-dimensional algorithm within a six-dimensional structure of relation. This is the ‘logic’ of it. We consolidate those relations as structures of information/matter at each dimensional level - defining particles, atoms, molecules, reactions, cells, organisms, persons, etc. This enables us to make sense of relational structure one or two dimensions at a time, by ‘ignoring’ the complexity of the underlying consolidated structure. A cell cannot exist without a relation between biochemical reactions that challenges the necessity of consolidated molecular structure; a molecule cannot exist without a relation between atoms that challenges their consolidated atomic structure; an atom cannot exist without a relation between electrons and the protons within its nucleus; and a particle cannot exist without a relation to anti-matter. So, a bias at any level is essentially a relation to non-existence, regardless of consolidation. This not only unifies intra/extra-cellular consciousness, it unifies the structure of existence.
Quoting Pop
It seems like you keep referring to my position as a ‘brain-centric’ conception of consciousness, but this is not the case at all. Emotions are constructed in the brain from qualitative information that it cannot consolidate, but all the information that it has consolidated (to which this emotion must relate) is essentially qualitative, too. Think of it as a particle-wave duality at every level of existence: all information is BOTH quantitative and qualitative in nature. It comes down to whether the system is consolidating (quantitative) or relating (qualitative) to this information. What is fundamental is not the ‘emotions’ themselves, but the qualitative information from which they are constructed, which exists in some form in all of life, and is fundamental to existence.
I can tell you that I am neither a materialist nor an idealist, as such. I think you have a bias to consolidate your position as an idealist, which manifests as a prejudice against materialist arguments. In my view (and this is deliberately simplistic) materialists struggle with relativity and idealists struggle with entropy. But I think a six-dimensional structure of information, with qualitative-quantitative duality, accounts for both in a surprisingly elegant way.
DNA is alive however, Is it indifferent or is it biased?
If it is biased then you have to admit emotions are fundamental and essential.
Quoting Possibility
Yes it is both. A bias to be is what the self organization revolves aground, and how this self organization expresses itself is endlessly variable and open ended - quite possibly infinite :starstruck: - If we apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, there is always information outside the system that things within the system rely on for their explanation. So this suggests infinite consciousness growth.
Regarding your broader argument that "Nothing exists that is biased to NOT be". I would agree with this, my theory is panpsychist and it relies on not just information to be fundamental, but emotional -information. As previously explained indifferent or reasonable information would not form a universe, so it would not become a process of self organization, and neither would its component parts. You Barrett and myself agree that emotional - information exists, not purely objective information, and we arrive at this through different paradigms and different reasoning, so this is important. That everything that exists is biased to be so is profound as it affirms emotional-information. But I would speculate further in this direction, and a little off topic, in regard to where great insights and ideas come from. Minds like Einstein and others say they come from a love of the subject, but what is love? - some emotion that arises due to the pleasure of engagement with somebody or something. It gives rise to extraordinary energy and engagement, and extraordinary things happen. :smile: How this phenomenon relates to emotional-information is worthy of a theory in itself.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, that is how it seems. The PPS is an emotional gradient that they both agree on.
Quoting Possibility
That is cheating and you know it. :smile:
Quoting Possibility
I love your dimensionality, I think it is really clever. I also agree on your vertical explanation of the complexity of life. What I would add is that the macro organism requires emotion to be conscious and alive, and hence all of its component parts also are experiencing emotion, and all of its component parts all the way down are thus capable of experiencing emotion, hence this must be the case, even when they are not part of the whole organism. So emotion is essential. It may be the singular concept that all the component parts can agree on.
Quoting Possibility
It is a very elegant conception, but I believe it would be even better if you integrated it with my conception. :cool: - not that I'm biased or anything.
The way I see it: Barrett's conception ( highly simplified ) is that information is integrated and thus emotion is created that affects a person. I would say how about accounting for experience. Barrett would say that is part of the subconscious. I would say hay - not any more: experience is an emotion, that is a feeling, that is either painful or pleasurable, that is something both consciousnesses agree on, that is something understood all the way down, that is something that unifies and animates the entire system.
DNA is not alive. It is a molecular structure, organised in such a way that the potential of the information it contains renders a living system. Its informational structure has a qualitative aspect that manifests only in relation to another DNA structure, under certain conditions within a system that will supply the required resources.
Quoting Pop
No I don’t. You isolate this qualitative aspect as ‘bias’ or ‘emotion’ only because you cannot consolidate it, but it only exists as such in relation to the consolidated or ‘logical’ system from which you exclude it. DNA does not consist of information plus emotion, rather its information is qualitatively four-dimensional, but you can only consolidate it in a three-dimensional quantitative structure, plus ‘emotion’ as an unconsolidated relational aspect.
Yes, everything that exists has a relational aspect that we exclude from its consolidated definition. I don’t refer to it as ‘emotion’ because I disagree with the exclusion. This relational aspect cannot be understood separate from the relational structure that forms the DNA itself, nor from the relational structure that forms each of its atomic and particular components and brings them together in this way. And so ‘emotion’ is an arbitrary distinction that limits understanding of qualitative information as a whole-system structure.
Quoting Pop
It seems endless, but each system still has it limitations. Carlo Rovelli describes the two main postulates of quantum mechanics in terms of information this way:
It is only when we recognise these limitations that we realise the importance of our interconnectedness, and that being able to navigate the entire relational structure of existence is what will enable us to more efficiently consolidate complex information structures.
Quoting Pop
Love is what rounds out this six-dimensional structure of existence in terms of qualitative relations: pure relational possibility. This is the part that I find reductionists struggle with the most, where everything dissolves into its negation. Because when everything matters regardless of value, then nothing matters; and ‘all information is meaningful’ becomes meaningless. The six-dimensional structure of existence is equal to non-existence. It messes with your head, but without this final dimension then nothing exists. But that’s another topic...
It’s worth exploring Kant’s aesthetics to recognise how this develops from the pleasure of engagement to a non-conceptual, disinterested delight, allowing ‘free play’ between our faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement. It’s a challenge for reductionists, though, who struggle to resist judgement, consolidating away objects and concepts until only ideas remain, leaving very little substance to play with in the end.
Quoting Pop
But how do you determine that protein synthesis agrees with this emotional gradient? And are you simply organising extra-cellular system structures so that they do agree?
Quoting Pop
Maybe a little - but it demonstrates my point. Everything that we quantify, we also experience qualitatively. And what we experience qualitatively cannot always be fully quantified, but the most accurately I can construct a qualitative experience for you is by structuring the information I have within the most complex logical system that we share, so that you relate to it in a predictable way. The simpler the logical system I use, and the more unqualified assumptions I make, the more variable your relation to the experience might turn out to be.
In the OP I describe an instance of consciousness where information is integrated with emotion. This being the state that creates an experience, which we take to be reality. The information is processed by the intellect / extracellular consciousness, but the emotion belongs to the whole system, hence when information and emotion is unified the whole system agrees. But you would really have to read the whole theory.
As a monistic idealist, information is the fundamental stuff, but I do sympathize with a lot of yogic logic, although I keep my rationale and language firmly embedded in logic and a materialistic language and style.
DNA is not only alive, it is immortal. Life is its vehicle. It is living information, and ultimately, if information is fundamental, this is what life is - living information. You cant say DNA is not alive! It exists in every one of your 10 trillion odd cells.
So which postulate do we accept? Because one contradicts the other! If a system is finite, how can you always obtain new information?
Quoting Possibility
This statement dose not disagree with my view entirely. Kant is experiencing qualia, whilst suspending intellectual content. Of course, it is doubtful such a situation can exist, and it makes no sense to say that in such a setting you can have understanding or judgement, as those would be intellectual content. This gets back to why you cannot describe red with reason alone, it is something that can only be experienced, and is a slightly different experience for everybody regardless of how you might describe it.
No, DNA is information for living. There’s a difference. DNA by itself is a biochemical molecular structure - its capacity for life is purely relational, in the same way that energy’s material capacity is purely relational. Saying that DNA is alive is like saying that energy is directly observable - you’re referring to the capacity of a relational process as if it is the result.
Our language is structured to conflate the process of potential with its result, particularly with nouns ending in ‘-ation’. I have a feeling we will continue to talk past each other in a number of areas because of your focus on reduction, and mine on relation. The concept ‘information’, for instance, can refer to the process (relation) as well as the result (consolidation). But if ‘information is fundamental’, then which of these are we referring to? And which of these is ‘emotion’?
Quoting Pop
That’s the thing: they don’t contradict each other at all. It only seems like they do because we conflate the process of potential with its result. Information in quantum mechanics refers only to its relational process, because the results can be consolidated only in relation to an observer. Think of it this way: how is it that computer capacity keeps growing, while the physical size gets smaller? In a finite system, it is how we structure the potential for information that increases its capacity, and the physical size of an information system is limited ultimately by its energy consumption.
Quoting Pop
It wasn’t supposed to disagree with your view. But Kant is not suspending intellectual content - what would be consolidated into objects and concepts, he’s retaining as relational information.
Come on, is your arm alive? Is your heart alive? Are you alive? Because according to your argument you are not. This is a surprise argument from you. What dose not depend on relation for its existence?
DNA is indeed alive as part of a whole living system, just as you are alive as part of the biosphere and information that surrounds you. DNA is alive and indeed immortal, or at least the basic instruction set shared by all of life is immortal. The Bias to be is a fundamental necessity that self organisation / consciousness forms around. It creates a self that is biased to be, hence self organisation can occur. It could not occur around an indifference to be / a non self.The selfish gene creates consciousness. A non selfish gene would be a P.zombie gene, so indifferent or not selfish, so not conscious or alive.
So DNA is biased to be, whether self determined, or externally determined. Hence emotional-information is fundamental. It is the fundamental necessity for consciousness and life. Unemotional information would not cause self organization as there would be no self to organize around. Emotional information causes a central bias that is the self, and this is what self organization / consciousness forms around and preserves.
Of course, my postulates challenge your self organization, and visa versa. This is why I am not hopeful of a resolution any time soon. :rage:
Quoting Pop
Postulate one contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and lets not forget these postulates are mathematically based. This is why I try not to stray too far from personal experience - the further from this the murkier the waters become.
Quoting Possibility
What Kant is describing is an experience. But in his time he dose not have the conceptual framework with which to understand it. He lacks the P.zombie argument principally, so he strays into impossible assertions which simply don't make sense.
Consciousness can be divided into information integration, and then experience, and then affect.
The experience, I postulate, is resolved to an emotion, which is a feeling, which resolves to a point on the PPS. This creates Affect. I think, you, Kant and Barrett see the experience component as the subconscious, and so you make mistakes. It is possible to some extent to suspend thought, and feel the qualia of an experience, but to then suggest imagination, understanding , and judgement can come into play is a contradiction, as then intellect comes into play and that effects the feeling being felt. I can see a beautiful women and enjoy seeing her beauty non judgmentally, but then I learn something about her that I don't like, and so her beauty in my eyes is diminished.
It is possible to reach a state of consciousness in meditation that is ineffable. It is a state where the intellectual consciousness is turned off, so nothing can be said about this state. It is not something many can do reliably, but many will experience such moments in meditation, and still others can use such mind control in everyday life. Kant is referring to this ability without quite grasping it. Having knowledge of this ability shines a alight on experience, in my opinion.
Fundamentally everything is information. If we strip the matter from the universe , it is just information interacting with information, but the information differentiates through consolidation, and for that to happen there has to be a bias / self interest around which self organization can take place. So central to the zones of self organization there is emotion, in the form of a biased self - in animate and inanimate matter. So emotion is the central element of self organization, as best I understand it. Consolidation could not occur without a central bias to form around. It would not form around an indifference, and a self disinterest would be a repulsive force, whilst a bias to be is an attractive, gravity like force.
This dose not exclude relation. Zones of consolidation still have to relate to the information surrounding them, and at the same time consolidate in order to have a self, so its a balancing act. To be a self there has to be differentiation, or selfishness, but I agree with you entirely that this would be meaningless without relating to the surrounding information. Zones of consolidation occur, but they themselves are part of a greater whole, which they form from, and which may indeed create them, and certainly which they cannot exist without.
I think I’m starting get a picture of how you’re viewing this. It’s similar to the 3+1 dimensional perspective of the physical universe: consolidation plus emotion/relation. You’re starting with a defined object - the DNA molecule - and then attempting to attribute the extra relational information (which at this level is information for ‘life’) without losing the original consolidated structure. So consolidated-DNA plus emotion = ‘alive’. It’s the ‘plus emotion equals’ that I’m concerned with, because the relational process is not that simple.
Using ‘plus emotion equals’ works as long as you’re only talking about a relation to one consolidation level. Once you move from there to consciousness, you can either talk about consolidated DNA+emotion=life, OR you can talk about consolidated life+emotion=consciousness. But to talk about both, you need to understand the relational structure is not just ‘plus emotion equals’, because you’re talking about two different dimensional aspects. In mathematics, it would be like talking about an x-axis variable and a y-axis variable as if they were both y. Also, keep in mind that consolidated molecules+relation=DNA; consolidated atoms+relation=molecular; consolidated (probabilistic) particles+relation=atomic; and that particles are pure relational structure. Each of these equations shows an emotion/relation variable as a dimensional extension from the consolidated object. The ‘+relation=’ is a placeholder for some relational structure, and its complexity is exponential.
So in the end, it’s pointless arguing about whether or not DNA is ‘alive’ in a discussion about consciousness, because the +relation= in the equation DNA+relation=life needs to be expanded out if you hope to relate consolidated DNA to the equation: life+emotion=consciousness.
An overall six-dimensional structure helps me to keep these relations all in perspective, so that I can’t confuse one relational aspect with another, as I shift from atom to molecule to DNA to living system to conscious subject and back again. I may not know the exact structural relation, but I do know that the relational information between a living system and consciousness is not the same as the relational information between DNA and a living system, because that information is consolidated uniquely in each living system. So, it’s all relational information, but it’s not the same information.
I can say with confidence that your hope to consolidate the ‘basic instruction set shared by all life’ is as pointless as a religious hope to consolidate the ‘basic instruction set’ for all human morality. Both will lead you either to a false and exclusive binary, or to the fundamental and arbitrary relation between matter and non-existence.
Quoting Pop
There is no such thing as a p-zombie gene - this is an example of a false binary.
1. DNA + emotion (bias to be) = life
2. life + emotion (bias to become) = consciousness
3. emotion (bias to be) = emotion (bias to become)
4. Therefore consciousness — emotion = p.zombie gene
My problem is with 3, for reasons I have tried to explain above.
Quoting Pop
These postulates are based on quantum mechanics, so they take into account the variability of personal experience in applying mathematics to physics, and do not refer to an axiomatic system. You’re making a false assumption that ‘relevant information’ is all possible information, which would contradict Godel’s theorem, but Rovelli explains quite clearly that this is not the case. I suggest you read it again.
Quoting Pop
You’re consolidating experience from information before any interaction occurs. Information is resolved to affect by the interoceptive network and aligned with conceptualised experience (which has also been resolved to predictions of affect for the purpose of relation). The potential for adjustments to prediction and/or interoception is evaluated for the system’s current and predicted availability, requirement and allocation of energy (effort and attention), and the most efficient resolution is determined as an overall instruction for the system - to be continually revised in the same way at every subsequent moment. This ongoing resolution forms the basis of our allocation of attention: our consciousness, most of which is working on conceptualised experience. With practise, we can learn to allocate more attention only to interoception (ie. through meditation), OR to the process of evaluation itself: the interplay of imagination, understanding and judgement. This is introspection. If you learn something about a beautiful woman that you don’t like and allow it to affect how you perceive her beauty, then you’ve given rein to judgement. The challenge is to understand that her ‘beauty’ is not yours to bestow through judgement. Then you can still appreciate this beauty, without ignoring what you’ve learned about her. To suspend judgement is not to dismiss information, but to imagine the feeling without that effect, and in doing so understand how information affects your faculty of judgement, which shines a light on experience.
Quoting Pop
Kant is not referring to ‘turning off’ intellectual consciousness, but examining it. This is a common misconception of Kant’s aesthetic experience - it comes from a compulsion to consolidate objects and concepts in the intellectual process. Interestingly, it’s a compulsion that Kant shares. This is why he refers to aesthetic experience - because there exists an awareness of beauty and delight in our experience of nature that commonly transcends object, concept, purpose and even necessity, despite all efforts to consolidate.
No I'm afraid we are miles apart.
Quoting Possibility
The issue with whether DNA is alive or not revolves around whether it is biased to be. The below video shows DNA in action. It is indeed alive and wiggling, and doing its stuff, much like a queen bee in the center of a hive, with RNAs tending to it, and epigenetics coordinating the whole show. It is alive and biased to be, you have admitted previously that a bias to be is central to life. DNA is central to life also. As per Richard Dawkins's Selfish gene, and my argument that a bias exists centrally to consciousness / self organization, and a bias, and selfishness are emotions, thus emotion is shown to be fundamental.
Quoting Possibility
Exactly! I was using it as an expression of something that that could not create consciousness. As apposed to a selfish / biased gene, which is essential in establishing a self around which self organization can take place. Thus consciousness and life arose together. But for consciousness to exist emotion has to be present, and in DNA it is present as a bias to be, or a selfishness that creates the self, as the nucleus of self organization.
DNA has the following options:
1. Biased to be
2. indifferent to be.
3. Random about being
4 biased to not be.
Which of these options do you think it is? Which option would natural selection favour? Whether this is a choice DNA makes, or is something shaped by external forces, is of no consequence. This is the fundamental information shared by all of life that we are talking about. Look at the world around you, every niche is filled with life. Please engage with and answer this question before we go further. It is an easy question to answer, in my opinion. I simply ask myself - to be or not to be, and I know the answer. I don't need to rationalize anything or build a theory around it, I don't need to think about it at all. It is a bias that exists within me, and my DNA.
The DNA ‘in action’ is part of the relational structure in a living system. Without this relation, the process would not occur, and the DNA would meet none of the requirements for life. The DNA seems like it is alive because it is always perceived as part of an existing living system. The video is a computer-generated consolidation of relational processes, allowing you to visually isolate and identify certain ‘objects’. But the objects don’t exist, only the relational processes do. This ‘show’ is just one aspect of relational processes, which together structure each of the players, as well as the living system, of which it is an integrated and integral part.
The fundamental ‘bias’ and ‘selfishness’ refer to these relational processes, interpreted as properties and attributed to ‘objects’ as ‘+emotion’ via consolidation - ie. by ignoring the relational processes that structure what you consider to be fundamental, and excluding the relational processes that transcend the system you consider to be universal. If I was so ignorant as to assume life as the be-all-and-end-all of existence, then I might agree that ‘emotion is fundamental’. I do agree that whatever constitutes your concept of ‘+emotion=’ underlies the very structure of life and also enables consciousness, but I disagree with how you constitute this concept only from what is unreasonable within a system. This prevents you from understanding the concept as it pertains to all of existence.
Quoting Pop
Life arose with the potential for consciousness, just as atoms arose with the potential for molecules. But for molecules to exist, it is not ‘emotion’ that has to be present, but an underlying relational structure through which ‘molecular potential’ is established, enabling this ‘self’-organisation of atoms only through correlation. This ‘molecular potential’ consists of an energy prediction of effort (distance) and attention (direction) in the atom that aligns with another. And once a molecule exists, it, too, has an underlying relational structure (more complex than the atom) with a certain potential for material substance, also consisting of effort (energy) and attention (structure). But most molecules don’t form material substances, just as most atoms don’t form molecules, most molecular structures don’t form living organisms and most living organisms don’t form a ‘self’. Those that do are not so much biased to be as interactively ‘lucky’ in the scheme of existence (or unlucky, depending on your view).
You can refer to the potential for consciousness as ‘emotion’ in your narrow perspective, but it will confuse the issue if you then explore the potential of the conscious self for introspection: ie. to form ‘emotions’, thoughts and other abstract concepts, that enable the ‘no-longer-self’-organisation of consciousness into differentiated conceptual systems within a broader relational structure of intersubjective meaning. But more than likely you also exclude this aspect of reality from your theory. I understand your preference for keeping it simple, but either this is a theory of consciousness, or you admit it’s an expression of limited intersubjective experience of consciousness.
Quoting Pop
DNA as a molecular structure is biased to be ONLY in relation to a living system. Otherwise, it is biased to NOT BE. Your answer is ‘to be’ because you only relate to the question as a living system. But objectively speaking, DNA as a conceptually isolated molecular structure is indifferent, and at the most fundamental level of existence, any answer to the question of ‘to be or not to be?’ is random.
I totally agree with you in regard to the relational aspect of everything. My philosophy was weak in this area, and this conversation has helped to strengthen my understanding, so thank you.
Yes DNA is alive as part of a system. It is probably not the dominant brain of the system, it is capable of creating messenger RNA, and they, in their many guises, are seeming to be the epigenetics of the system. They can transcribe from DNA, but also reverse transcribe, to alter DNA.
Quoting Possibility
I concentrate on the fundamentals of a system to try and unentangle the qualitative ( emotional ) and quantitative information. There are only tiny little straws on offer to do this with. Thus far microbes respond to painful stimuli, the selfish gene, the bias to be, and gradient tracking - all suggest emotions at the fundamental level. We know information, energy and matter are present at this level, we know there is life, but for consciousness we need emotion to be present at this level, and I think there is a strong case. I am convinced , at least.
Quoting Possibility
Relational aspects of life are well established. Once emotion at the fundamental level is established, then we start to get an understanding of how consolidation or a nucleus to relational self organization forms. That qualia cause self organization is a good bet. Dose qualia = emotion? If so, and this is my understanding, then it is consciousness that emerges as self organization, not life. Life is a concept that obscures this understanding, and I wish I could erase it from common usage, as it is redundant and makes my case difficult to explain. Consciousness arises as a system of self organization - this is what you are seeing in those cellular animations. An extremely sophisticated system of self organization. This system of self organization is common to all of life, and as we come to understand it better, we must attribute its spectacular complexity, to either god, or a consciousness.
Quoting Possibility
The way I understand it is - all living organisms form a self. Forming a self is fundamental to self organization.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, DNA can only exist in a living system, and is biased to be. Fundamentally it is biased to be, as the universe is biased to be, so all of the component parts of the universe in turn are biased to be. So it would seem emotion is fundamental as well as information. This is how I understand Panpsychism.
A multi-cellular organism relies on a number of additional integrated system structures, within which DNA (as molecular-level information) is subject to variability in interpretation, expression, editing and transmission. Saying DNA is the dominant brain would be like saying the bible is the ‘dominant brain’ of Christianity, so to speak.
Quoting Pop
There are only tiny little straws because you’re not really at the fundamentals of that system. You’ve consolidated molecular relations within a living system, and you’re arguing for the existence of relational information as proof that ‘consciousness’ exists at this level. Relational information at the level of biochemistry - as a variability in 3D structure (attention) and energy (effort) - pertains to the potential for ‘life’ in relation to a living organism, in the same way that affect - as a variability in valence (attention) and arousal (effort) - pertains to the potential for ‘consciousness’ in relation to a conscious organism.
The way I see it, all of existence has a six-dimensional structure of relational possibility. In this way, we often relate to animals and even rocks as if they were conscious - attributing attention and effort as valence and arousal - but we have no reason to assume they are even vaguely aware of relations at that level of complexity. You can say that DNA is alive and emotional because it moves and responds to interaction in a way that supports the awareness and intentionality of the organism, but that’s because DNA is always subject to the awareness and intentionality of the organism through interpretation and epigenetics. You seem to be arguing that DNA has its own agenda within a living system, but there is no evidence of that.
Quoting Pop
At the fundamental level, even sub-atomic particles are contingent upon relation. It’s not a matter of establishing emotion at the level of DNA, but recognising that each ‘fundamental’ level of consolidation is dependent upon underlying relations, and so this relational information that we perceive as ‘emotion’ (from our conscious perspective) points to the potentiality of a higher level of ‘self’-organisation. But don’t confuse the potentiality of DNA with that of the living or conscious system that interprets the relation. The perceived potentiality of a rock is enhanced exponentially by my own capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration with its relational structure. I wouldn’t claim that capacity is inherent to the rock, though.
Both emotion and qualia are relational information, but they relate to different consolidated structures, so they are not the same. It isn’t surprising that equating these two is difficult to explain. I understand your wish to remove consolidated structures such as ‘life’ from an explanation of relational information. If you are to take this seriously, though, you would need to remove ALL consolidated structures: DNA, molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles - even consciousness. Because they, too, are constructed by relational information. This system of self-organisation is common to all of existence, but it goes further than attributing its complexity to ‘a consciousness’.
Do you include your own consciousness within that consciousness, or in external relation to it? Be careful how you answer this question: the former suggests determinism, the latter suggests a god. Or is it your own consciousness that you’re referring to? In which case, you have many conscious subjects, each with their own potential structure of reality, within the possible existence of a more complex relational structure than consciousness. This is the sixth dimension, an aspect of meaning and possibility.
Quoting Pop
You’re missing the point. The universe as a whole is not biased to be - what you’re able to interact with is structured to enable this interaction, but there is much more to the possible universe than this. Emotion IS information - there is no ‘as well as’ and we need to stop making this distinction. It isn’t helpful. The difference is only in how we perceive it: as consolidated or relational. When we consolidate, we also perceive a one-dimensional, surface relation between ourselves and the world, which we refer to as ‘emotion’ or bias. But the reality is that information is relational across multiple dimensions, affecting the system as one, two, three, four and five-dimensional relational structures within an integrated system. We always need to locate our perception in relation to the world, and be honest about attributing this relational information that you package as ‘emotion’.
The truth is that this ‘emotion’ is both our relation to the system and its relation to ours. When we consider ourselves to be a wholly rational, consolidated structure, then we attribute all ‘emotion’ to the system - the object of our attention and effort. When we consider this object to be the wholly rational, consolidated structure (as materialists do), then we must attribute all ‘emotion’ to ourselves. When we consider all of existence - ourselves included - to be purely relational in its structure, then everything is information and everything is relational, and we can more honestly attribute attention and effort, beyond the limitations and bias of consolidated structures.
That is not a bad analogy. But I said it was probably not the dominant brain. However that there is mind at the cellular level is without doubt. You have described it as "molecular-level information". So we have information, and there is a good argument for emotion, and they are the two ingredients of consciousness - of course it is entangled into matter. Specifically, entangled into DNA, which is a symbolic representation of information, much like the sentence I'm writing. So we have abstract thought at the cellular level.
There would be an underlying quantum layer, but I don't want to go there for now, as it is too theoretical.
The biological data - that information, and emotion, and abstract thought are present, is not theoretical. That we are blind to it is a hangover from materialism, I believe.
Again, I like your relational explanation of things, but its not how I experience the world. It is how you experience the world. Both views work, but they are different expressions of consciousness, and I suspect underlying these expressions is a simple algorithm that we both posses, that expresses itself in a myriad of different ways, through life and life's activities.
Quoting Possibility
My own consciousness is the extracellular consciousness of the cellular master consciousness, and I am emotionally driven. That is the logic of it. So make what you will of that. Just to clarify - I am a very normal functional person. :meh:
Quoting Possibility
If emotion is information, then you should be able to inform me exactly how you feel, such that I could feel it also, but you cannot for the same reason you couldn't describe red. Information and emotion exist in consciousness, emotion entangles information, but it is only information that exists in transit from one consciousness to another. Perhaps it is better described as biased information, and we can to some extent discern the bias. It is biased because it is entangled by emotion.
Emotion is a subjective quality that arises in relation to integrated information. Every thought has a corresponding quale, that orients us in our personally constructed reality. The whole conscious experience gets reduced to an emotional symbol representing the experience. Once we are in possession of the emotional symbol ( quale ), we understand the implications of the information we have integrated. My quale would be located on a point on the PPS, but yours would perhaps be a multidimensional PPS. Regardless, it is at this point that we have an experience, that we take to be reality.
Your first and last sentences here are examples of confusing dimensional levels. I recognise that you don’t see the world this way, but this is where you fail to see that your theory is an over-simplification, so it’s worth getting your head around it. Molecular-level information is not ‘mind’: mind refers to five-dimensional structure, molecular-level information refers to three-dimensional structure. DNA consists of four-dimensional information, rendered in a three dimensional structure as organisational code (an arrangement of chemical potential) by its relation to four-dimensional systems. The sentence, on the other hand, consists of five-dimensional information rendered in a four-dimensional structure as organisational code (a sequence of observable letters) by its relation to five-dimensional systems.
But the sentence also relies on four-dimensional information (your actions) rendered in a three-dimensional structure as organisational code (keyboard hits), and then rendered by your computer into a one-dimensional system as binary code. This is not an integrated process, but must be monitored and maintained by five-dimensional integrated systems, to adjust for errors and damage. DNA, on the other hand, requires integration with four-dimensional (living) systems to monitor and maintain its process. DNA does not require emotion or mind - a five-dimensional relation - to produce life; only a four-dimensional relation is required.
That said, some potential for a resulting four-dimensional system to relate to another four-dimensional system in a five-dimensional relational structure is written into most DNA structural information - but doesn’t exist as emotion or mind, and varies both within every DNA code and for every type of living cell. In the same way, the structural information of a carbon atom has a vastly different potential to form molecular relations than that of a helium atom, but whether any molecular relation will even occur is indeterminate at the level of atomic structural information.
You keep constructing the result of DNA information in your mind as if it already exists.
Quoting Pop
Emotion and abstract thought consist of information - this must be the case if, as you say, everything is information. They cannot then be present alongside information in biological data. You keep consolidating information at a particular level of awareness, and then treat what remains as something else. It isn’t - it’s all information. You will need to come to terms with this as a monist, otherwise you will keep contradicting yourself.
Quoting Pop
There seems to be a contradiction here. You have been arguing:
1. Everything is information. (Monism)
2. Emotion is not information. (Dualism)
Can you explain this?
Referring to emotion as a ‘quality’ does not explain its existence as something other than information, unless by ‘information’ you mean only consolidated information.
To resolve this as a monist, either everything is information (and emotion is information), OR everything is emotion (and information is emotion). Where do you fall?
Dimensionality is a great way to contemplate relational structures of information, but at the end of the day you still have to reduce your deliberations to a symbiology of some kind. Consciousness integrates information and reduces it to an emotional symbol. This creates , from your perspective, affect. But I have a more detailed understanding where each instance of consciousness results in a corresponding emotional symbol - each instance of consciousness has its quale. From another part of the forum, If each quale were a note, then when strung together they would cause a tune. This tune describes how you feel about your reality. It is an emotional understanding. If it is unpleasant, you act to make it more pleasant, If it is pleasant you enjoy the ride. This is what causes behavior.
Reducing complexity is what happens at the cellular level also. Complexity is reduced to a symbiology that is DNA. Likewise consciousness is a reduction of complexity, an integration of information, a sort of biological black hole that integrates information to a symbol that is ultimately understood as an emotion. Each instance has its own emotion. That is how we know it is unique.
Quoting Possibility
Are you saying it doesn't exist. Are you saying that molecules are not formed from amino acids. That information processing is not going on? That there is no mind making choices and decisions at the cellular level? It is a difficult conclusion to make - I admit, but not because of the facts of the matter, but because of the paradigm we inhabit.
Quoting Possibility
Emotion is information in consciousness. But it is not something reducible to information absolutely. Information can hint at it, but not dissect and describe and convey it absolutely. The emotional charge at one consciousness can not be reduced to information absolutely such that it ca be felt equally at another consciousness, in the same way that a concept can be described and understood. Emotion is information that has an affect on a consciousness, so it acts more like a force.
Only if you consider a DNA molecular structure, the various cell structures it manifests and maintains, the organism they form and sustain, and the consciousness that develops, each as distinct living systems. But that would be ridiculous. Dimensionality IS a kind of symbiology: one that recognises everything (including emotion) as relational information.
Quoting Pop
No, that’s not quite how I see it. Consciousness is the result of a continual correlation between interoceptive and conceptual predictions of reality, as four-dimensional relational structures. Affect is the relative difference interpreted by our interoceptive network (a purely relational system) which manifests as a distribution of effort and attention; emotion is how our conceptual systems - particularly in relation to language and culture - make sense of that difference in a prediction. This continual interplay and adjustment is the process of integration in a conscious organism. But we are not conscious of it all - only what required our carefully distributed attention at the time.
Quoting Pop
This all sounds very reasonable, but it’s pure speculation based on ignorance. ‘Qualia’ and ‘emotion’ are placeholder concepts for unconsolidated information - they reify qualitative relations so that reductionists can deal with them as if they are ‘things’ among consolidated concepts. You pretend you understand what they are, because they are named. ‘If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride’ - but metaphor is not a detailed understanding, it’s an expression of subjective experience. One instance of relation is not a definition. Because we DON’T always act to make an unpleasant feeling more pleasant, and we DON’T always simply go along with a pleasant one. This type of over-generalised thinking is what perpetuates bigotry, religious hatred and other prejudicial assumptions - blinding us to the anomalies, inaccuracies and prediction errors that point to a flawed methodology. Acknowledging and relating to the variability (especially the inconsistencies) in relational behaviour, instead of focusing on the ‘essence’, is the key to understanding. This is how Copernicus and Galileo changed the world.
Quoting Pop
It’s interesting that you use the analogy of a ‘black hole’ - this suggests an event horizon: a lack of understanding, rather than a ‘more detailed’ one.
Reductionist methodology is not simply reducing complexity for the sake of it. We can reduce by consolidation, or by attempting to render complex information in a simpler relational structure. Consolidating information reduces volume by discarding information deemed irrelevant. Rendering increases the volume of information, like 7 being ‘reduced’ to 0111 in binary. Barrett uses the computer analogy of ‘sampling’ to describe the conceptual process, which combines both these methodologies in a complex structural relation that maximises the relation between efficiency and accuracy. It refers not just to a symbol, but to a ‘cascade’ of conceptual structures that build on each other in relation to interaction with the environment, like the construction of a snowflake.
Each snowflake is unique, but the relational structure of a snowflake lends itself to ultimately being understood in relation to our capacity to collaborate. Reducing snowflake structure to an ‘essential’ geometric pattern doesn’t help us to understand or predict each snowflake construction, because it is the relative conditions of each instance within that construction process that determines its uniqueness, step by step.
In the same manner, the relational structure of consciousness can be understood - not by reducing it to an essential geometric pattern, but by recognising that there is an existing conceptual structure, unique to the experiencing subject, upon which any instance of emotion is constructed. And that conceptual structure is a result of millions of ‘emotional instances’, each manifest according to their relative conditions at the moment of construction.
Barrett shows that ‘emotional instances’ are formed from a relation between the prediction generated by conceptual structure, and the prediction generated by interoception (ie. the relative conditions). Part of that instance is relational behaviour, as affect, and part of it is restructuring the conceptual system (including the predictive pattern of emotion) to enable a ‘reasonable’ justification of that affect, so that the result is an ongoing alignment of conceptual structure and interoception.
Quoting Pop
Using our minds, we can perceive that information potential exists in DNA, but it only manifests in relation to certain relative conditions. I am saying, however, that there is no mind making choices and decisions at the cellular level. These ‘choices and decisions’ are determined and initiated by the relation of potentiality in this DNA structure to relative conditions. You can probably argue that there is will at the cellular level, but not mind, and not with any degree of freedom. Will - the faculty by which any action is determined and initiated - traverses three main gateways, regardless of mind: ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. These ‘choices’ are predetermined to the extent that the relative conditions of this DNA structure - particularly of the cell it resides within - are narrow in relation to that DNA’s full potentiality. Furthermore, even the limited potentiality of its conditions is unknown at the cellular level.
Quoting Pop
It seems you are saying here that emotion is relevant information only at the level of consciousness, and has a complexity that renders it irreducible to consolidated information. I agree with this. All emotion is relational information - but not all relational information is emotion.
When you say ‘emotional charge’, then, I gather you’re referring to a one-dimensional relation attributed to a consolidated consciousness? In that sense, I agree that defining a particular ‘emotional charge’ will not enable it to be ‘felt equally’ by another. However, it is possible to describe and understand its relation to a relational consciousness, and determine where information is missing, by recognising that each relational structure aligns with another within a six-dimensional reality.
This ‘emotional charge’ can be more accurately described as a relation between five-dimensional structures: our personal conceptual structure or mind, and the structure of human logic or reason. When we perceive human logic/reason to be fixed, then all relational information is attributed to ourselves, our thoughts, etc as an emotional charge: a necessary property of experience, or a force that acts upon consciousness. But I would argue that relational information at this level is not emotion but meaning, and within this, the structure of human logic or reason is as variable and subject to criticism as our own value systems.
And all of this has to be reduced to a specific emotional symbol - a pin point - on the pain pleasure spectrum, for you to orient yourself in it. You have to know where you stand in regard to the reality you create for yourself. Each moment of consciousness creates a note. The notes in sequence create a tune - this is what we dance to.
Quoting Possibility
That is not so. A cellular protein is reduced to a pattern of genes - no information is lost.
Quoting Possibility
These are expressions of consciousness - these are the branches of the trees you are talking about, these are not consciousness itself. Consciousness is something common to everything in monism.
Quoting Possibility
All you are telling me here is that integrated information, results in emotion, which I have no problems with.
Quoting Possibility
There has been a quantum leap in cellular biology in the last 10 to 15 years, due to advances in technology. For anybody wishing to get up to speed on these developments I can recommend the youtube channel ibiology for state of the art information from the horses mouth. The old idea that this happens by chance somehow is a nonsense, but Descartes did his job well, so it is still considered a mechanical duck. It is an extremely sophisticated system of self organization, and self organization is consciousness, in my theory.
Quoting Possibility
It is indeed, but nevertheless meaning arises due to emotions! For a P.zombie it is all meaningless.
My understanding of emotions leans heavily on the Philosophical Zombie argument. Not that such a person can exist, but precisely that such a person can not exist. Without emotions, there can be no consciousness ( self organization ), and hence no life. It really gets to the essential primacy of emotions.
Quoting Possibility
Lets forget our differences on the other matters and concentrate on this topic?
We agree on your first sentence.
"All emotion is relational information" - maybe. It is information that causes affect, in relation to integrated information. Note, we don't know how the information becomes integrated. We become aware of the integrated information, and the emotion it is accompanied with.
"but not all relational information is emotion" - correct, but it seems all information is entangled with emotion? Can you think of any unemotional information - not a possibility. But can something outside of ourselves produce unemotional information?
No - you don’t HAVE to reduce this to a defined pinpoint on a constructed spectrum. Most humans and animals are more than capable of acting without that knowledge. What you act on is affect: an ongoing allocation of attention and effort to align ‘where you stand’ (as an interoception) and ‘the reality you create for yourself’ (as a conceptual structure), whether or not you can distinguish these constructions from consciousness.
Consciousness cannot be quantised into ‘moments’, anymore than what we dance to is reducible to ‘notes in sequence’ without losing information. What moves us is our subjective relation to the qualitative structure of the music as it is played: we are not moved only by the notes in sequence, but by how we relate to how they relate to each other - how the potentiality of a tune is perceived and expressed. This is what we dance to. We cannot dance to notes on a page. Their organisation into sequence (including supposedly ‘uncoded’ relational structure) remains an unconsolidated potential. We dance only in relation to a perception and expression of that potential: creating our own (predictive) expression of what we would ‘feel’ (perceive) in the performance.
Quoting Pop
Cellular protein is produced from an integrated system, which is not just consolidation, but, like the conceptual process, must involve both methodologies to maximise the relation between accuracy and efficiency. The relational structure that produces cellular protein is not just a pattern of consolidated ‘genes’ - the notes in sequence - but which notes and how/when those notes are to be ‘played’ by the cell structure are subject to relative conditions within the living organism. To say that cellular protein is reducible to a pattern of genes is like saying that consciousness is reducible to a pattern of brain states. Information is most certainly lost.
Quoting Pop
A relational information-based monism does not need to argue for ‘consciousness’ as a common property of every ‘thing’, only relational information. A rock is not conscious, and cannot be shown to be conscious. Every molecule of that rock, however, consists of relational information that extends beyond its molecular-level consolidation to interact with the world, to inform and be informed according to its (limited) capacity. This combined relational structure looks like a rock in the world, but is not integrated as such. If you hit that rock with a hammer, it is not conscious of being hit with a hammer, or of being split in two. But those molecules suddenly exposed to air molecules instead of rock will interact with them, and are open to change and forming new bonds from chemical reactions, oxidisation, etc. according to the relative conditions of each molecular interaction, not of the rock itself. For the rest of the molecules that make up the rock, nothing will change.
So one could argue that the relational properties of a molecule equate to ‘consciousness’, but it’s not the same ‘consciousness’ attributed as a property to humans. The difference in complexity is not accounted for in your theory. You could just as easily argue that consciousness is about the role of electrons, as much as it is about emotion. I would argue that there is something it is like to be a water molecule, but not an ice block - although I would not argue that a water molecule has ‘consciousness’ as a property. It has a pattern of relational properties, determined by its relational structure interacting in relational conditions. Consolidating all potential patterns of relational properties in a water molecule as ‘consciousness’ would imply that the molecule is informed of the variability in either its relational properties, structure or conditions. You may be informed of these, but the molecule is not. So you’re attributing your relational information to the molecule. That’s fine, as long you’re only referring to your relation to the molecule, and not the molecule’s relation to the world regardless of your observation. This is where quantum physics recognises the difficulties in untangling the potentiality of relational properties from the observation/measurement event.
Consciousness in your conceptual reality, therefore, is attributable to everything. But this is not consciousness in itself.
Quoting Pop
I have not said this is ‘chance’, but I maintain that calling it ‘consciousness’ is a case of false attribution. You’re implying that the DNA molecule is informed of the variability in its relational properties, structure or conditions. But only the epigenetic system has access to this information.
Quoting Pop
No, it doesn’t. The way I see it, meaning is pure relational information: its existence is possible, regardless of whether or not emotions can be constructed from this possibility. A p.zombie is a thought experiment in imagining a structure that excludes any potential for meaningful relations. Its possible existence is therefore meaningless in itself - regardless of whether it can have emotions, consciousness, life, or anything else. The possibility of meaning is the foundation of existence, from which the query ‘to be or not to be?’ arises as a question of potentiality, from which arises a question of occurrence, then space, then shape, then potential distance/energy, and finally +/- charge (which I argue is really affect, as a relation of arousal/effort and attention/valence).
Emotion, on the other hand, is contingent upon the consolidation of relational information at the level of mind/potentiality, which is contingent upon the consolidation of relational information at the level of life, which is contingent upon the consolidation of relational information at the level of molecular DNA...and so on, down to contingency upon an answer to the binary question above, but you’ll just ignore all this underlying structure as irrelevant, because the answer is assumed. You perceive emotion as essential to your existence (as a person who is not a p.zombie), and therefore essential to your constructed conceptual reality. Without disentangling your description of reality from your relation to it, you can make no claim to the ‘essential primacy’ of anything beyond the event horizon of your own existence.
Quoting Pop
All information is relationally structured. We cannot relate to any information without constructing affect from an interaction between relational properties at minimum. This is essential to any relational process in the organism regardless of consciousness, but a construction of ‘emotion’ can be engineered by arbitrarily attributing relational properties in conceptual reality: such is the capacity of self-organisation at the level of human consciousness.
Let’s say, for example, that I consider myself to be an entirely rational person, in full control of my emotions. Instead of getting ‘emotional’ at someone cutting me off in traffic, I attribute all ‘emotion’ to the information - they must have seen me and therefore maliciously intended to cut me off, and my leaning on the horn and yelling at them is then a perfectly justified, rational action in the circumstances: an expression of ‘emotional’ information. Do you notice how easily we disassociate ourselves from the conceptualised ‘emotion’ we construct from relational properties?
But we cannot disassociate ourselves from interoception, which not only determines our effort and attention, but continually informs, and is informed by, our conceptual reality. And we can develop an awareness, connection and collaboration both with the limitations of interoception and how it then interacts with our conceptual system - particularly, how relational information becomes integrated. Saying ‘we don’t know’ is a cop-out: the neuroscience research into the interoceptive network, conceptual cascades and constructionist theories of emotion show extensive understanding in this area. Ignoring it because it doesn’t support your theory is, well, ignorant.
A computer that randomly generates numbers or letters can be said to produce ‘unemotional information’, but in order to use that information, we look for the potential in its relational structure. Our consciousness is such that it doesn’t interact directly with the world, but predicts relational structure and assumes self-organisation, even where none exists. Like how we select lotto numbers. When there is no relational information, we attribute it from our own experience. If you look at three dots on an otherwise blank page, you will perceive a triangle - a potential relational structure between the dots. You know that there is no actual triangle, and yet it seems you cannot relate to all three dots without it, even as reason dismisses the information. As humans, our mind always relates potentially or predictively to the world: not as it is, but as it would be for us, if.... The neuroscience behind this fascinating temporal shift is explained in Barrett’s book.
What creates affect? "where you stand’ (as an interoception) ". Interoception, in its many guises, that you are aware of, reduces to feelings, and feelings can only be understood as something pleasant or painful. We can call it interoception, or a feedback loop, or self organization, it is consciousness.
What else also causes affect? " the reality you create for yourself’ (as a conceptual structure)".
It follows this form:
1: Senses input information
2: Information is integrated to reason
3: Reason is experienced
4: Experience is translated to emotion
5: Emotion is translated to a feeling
6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)
This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells you what this instance of consciousness means for you. At this point, the reason is understood by the whole body; whole body consciousness understands this language.
Again it is a feeling that causes affect, regardless of the conceptual structure that creates your reality.
So feelings always cause affect, and feelings reduce to something painful or pleasant.
Consciousness is subject to a causal chain - the next moment of consciousness is determined by the present moment, but it is not necessarily a simple linear progression, and there can be several trains of thought occurring simultaneously, with interruptions and resumptions in focus, etc. It is not possible to predict the next moment without first orienting yourself in the present moment. It is the present moment of consciousness and its associated emotional state - the feeling - that affects and causes the next moment.
Quoting Possibility
When you define consciousness as self organization it is.
Quoting Possibility
And what is epigenetics?
Quoting Possibility
Before you have meaning you have to have consciousness, before you can have that you have to have emotion. This is why emotional information is important. If emotional-information is fundamental, then consciousness is fundamental.
Quoting Possibility
I ignore it because it is a dead end, due to lack of information.
Quoting Possibility
I do not ignore it. As per above explanation. I see no conflict with my theory.
We are a long way from each other here.
Your description suggests that sensory information is processed through reason before an experience of reason is translated to emotion, which is then translated to feeling, and then justified by reduction to a point on an evaluative spectrum. You cannot explain how information is integrated to reason, and yet you assume that this is what happens, and you intellectualise an ‘experience’ of reason as integrated information, plus emotion. But so much has already occurred in relation to affect.
The way I see it:
1. The conceptual system predicts an interoception of affect from existing conceptual structures;
2. Affect determines attention and effort across the organism to align with this prediction;
3. This alignment adjusts interaction, directing the organism’s experience of sensory information;
4. Sensory information informs the interoceptive network of errors in the prediction-alignment process;
5. The interoceptive network translates these errors into a dialogue determining the attention/valence and effort/arousal required to most efficiently and effectively re-align with the conceptual system, given the organism’s other anticipated energy requirements.
This is accomplished by the interoceptive network adjusting its internal distribution of attention and effort, including reasoning and critical adjustment of conceptual structures to integrate new information for future predictions, and subsuming the remaining ‘feelings’ of valence and arousal under constructed ‘emotion’ concepts that justify further adjustments of attention and effort in the organism.
So your experience of reasoned information plus emotion is only what affect has directed your internal attention towards: what requires a level of self-awareness beyond conceptual structure. The majority of affect occurs with minimal self-conscious or reflective input. Anyone who thinks reason is calling the shots in consciousness is deluding themselves - reason deals only with what is contentious in experience.
Consciousness is not subject to a causal chain - this is a false assumption. There is no ‘moment of consciousness’ that you can isolate and examine in itself, no ‘present moment’, no ‘train of thought’ you can draw out on a map, and no ‘emotional state’ you can define. These are heuristic devices that have, at best, a metaphorical relation to reality, describing the relation between self-consciousness and consciousness. A causal chain is a temporal sequence of observable/measurable events. Consciousness perceives these temporal sequences from a position outside the structure of time, reduced to a relation between two temporal structures: interoception and conceptual prediction. Self-consciousness, on the other hand, is an internal perception of this relation from an ‘external’ position: one beyond these affect-level relational structures of the organism itself.
I think what we agree on is that we cannot escape the relational aspect of information, no matter how ‘rational’ we think the process might be. Any information that is presented as ‘unemotional’ has no relevance to reality, and therefore no meaning in itself. Information is meaningful only in a relational structure.
Where we differ is in the complexity of that structure. For you, it seems the entire top-end of that structure is collapsible when we subsume the relational aspects under the concept of ‘emotion’. Exclude this emotional aspect, and self-consciousness is equal to consciousness which is equal to life which is equal to DNA. My position with regard to this is that the entire structure of informational existence works the same way - all the way down. If you exclude the relational aspects of information at any structural level, then no substance remains to be called ‘information’. So your decision to draw the line at ‘DNA plus emotion’ is arbitrary, and suggests that you see no difference between ‘emotion’ at the level of DNA and at the level of self-conscious reflection, but you don’t refer to relational aspects at the level of sub-atomic structure as ‘emotion’. Monism cannot support such a distinction, though, which seems to be why you ignore sub-DNA structural relations for the purpose of your argument.
Acknowledging the relational aspect of information at the level of DNA I think is a useful step - I don’t want to take away from that. Equating that relational aspect to ‘emotion’, however, I think is ignorant of the multi-dimensional complexity in the differences between these aspects. What turns a line into a square in reality is not the same as what turns a cube into a tesseract, even though the dimensional complexity ratio is the same. My focus is on developing and improving reductionist methodology in a way that more accurately renders the complexity of ‘emotion’ as a constructed five-dimensional structure, instead of an ‘add-on’ relational aspect that can be applied to any structural level.
Feeling is not what causes affect, but is the raw internal sensory information that both affect and emotion consist of. The difference is that affect is constructed by interoception, whereas emotion is constructed by conceptual reality, which relies on the interoceptive network both for its sensory information and for its interaction with reality - through affect. Simply put, affect is the base language of the organism.
The aim of the organism is to make the most efficient and effective use of information under the circumstances. Information comes in as directed by the attention/valence and effort/arousal of the organism, is translated into affect (effort/arousal and attention/valence), filtered through an amorphous structure of interrelated value systems that run simulations in collaboration with the interoceptive network, enable adjustments to its various structures, and continually re-organise the structure of affect according to current best practise while applying it as an ongoing directive to the organism.
The most efficient way to structure so much information is by forming concepts: patterns of information that act as ‘sampling’ of more complex information, which are themselves samples of more complex information again. Language, social relationships and culture contribute to an interrelated value system that transcends the organism, and the base language of affect enables us to share patterns of information that amount to complex instructions for adjusting value systems and structures in each other. We even learn to align our emotion concepts and behaviour with the culture and language in which we interact most intimately, without being conscious of the gradual change, until someone points it out.
Further, while I understand your use of ‘self-organisation’ as a description of consciousness, there is some confusion in applying this across dimensional complexity with the identification of ‘self’. For a self-conscious subject, re-organisation occurs to the ‘self’, but is orchestrated by a relation between value systems within an understanding of meaning or purpose beyond this ‘self’. For a conscious subject (whose self-awareness is inconclusive), re-organisation occurs in intentional behaviour, but is orchestrated by a relation between ongoing events within a value structure - what we often assume to be ‘self’. For a living system (whose consciousness is inconclusive), re-organisation occurs in the spatial structure of a bio-chemical system (DNA), but is orchestrated by a relation between bio-chemical systems within an organism. And for a bio-chemical system (whose ‘life’ is inconclusive), re-organisation occurs in the overall molecular pattern, but is orchestrated by a chemical relation between molecular shapes within that pattern.
So, it seems that what you call ‘self-organisation’ is what I refer to as unconsolidated relational information. From the perspective of the system in question, what you refer to as ‘self’ is only a vague awareness of some kind of relational structure to the ‘universe’.
Epigenetics is a relational event structure between the DNA molecule and the living system.
Quoting Pop
Again, we are a long way from each other here. Before you can understand what meaning is, you have to have consciousness - but the relational structure of meaning is what makes all existence possible. Emotion is a construction of information in relation to an experiencing subject. Before you can have emotion, therefore, you need relational information AND an experiencing subject, ie. consciousness. Emotion requires consciousness and relational information, consciousness requires life and relational information, life requires bio-chemical systems plus relational information, bio-chemical systems require molecular structure plus relational information, molecular structure requires atoms plus relational information, atoms require sub-atomic particles plus relational information...
What I describe is a general formula which accounts for all instances of consciousness derived from external sensory information. The choice of words, I admit, could be better. Quantitative information might be better then reason, but it depends on what is being integrated. There are no assumptions here however, that information is integrated is evidenced by the Euclidian space you see. The rate at which this is sampled is an interesting question. Given there exists a plank length of time, we know consciousness is not a smooth process, as you have conceived it. That information is sampled at the plank length is highly unlikely, given that we are unable to distinguish between 30 Fps and smooth continuous time. So it is unlikely to be more then 30 to 40 a second. Energy efficiency being the pertinent consideration.
I also provide some proof of the construction through an articulation of qualia.
The qualia of life is consciousness
The qualia of consciousness are experiences.
The qualia of experiences are emotions.
The qualia of emotions are feelings.
The qualia of feelings are points on the PPS
The qualia of points on the PPS are death - pain / pleasure - life.
The qualia of life is consciousness – this completes the consciousness loop.
You see there is a loop that binds my construction together - all these elements are related by qualia and so no individual element can exist on it's own. When you consider one element you can not do so without all the others. Your understanding dose not recognize this at all. You would have to disprove this conception in order to logically dismiss it.
Your conception has a gaping hole, In my opinion, in that you do not describe an experience at all. You skip from information integration to Affect arbitrarily. In so doing you do not account for what it feels like to be conscious. You skip the pertinent aspect of consciousness - how experience is emotional, how feelings are painful or pleasurable. And so you create a conception of consciousness befitting a P.Zombie.
Every one of your 5 points contains an unprovable assumption. It is a typical and reasonable proposition of how information might be integrated, but that is all. There is no hint as to why this should be happening.
My theory contains:
1. A provable definition of consciousness - every instance of consciousness is self organization - for everything - always. It is a dynamic system even for rocks.
2. How experiences are emotional, ( contain carrot and stick ), as an explanation of what animates the biological system
3. How inanimate matter becomes conscious - through self organization, that has almost universal acceptance in abiogenesis theory.
You may not agree with it, but I don't believe you can reasonably disprove it. So far you have made some dints in certain aspects ( and I thank you for your help ), but it still floats. You offer up an alternative theory, which contains no explanation for the three points I mention, and so from a philosophical point of view I wonder why you even bother with it. Your theory is like dozens of reasonable theories that do not address the hard problem, but wait to be rescued by more information down the track. Unless they address the points I mention, they are just not in the race as an explanation of consciousness, in my opinion.
From my perspective, all of your vertical down conceptions are P.Zombies without emotion providing impetus. Unemotional Information, energy and matter cannot create consciousness - we know this from an understanding of ourselves. Add emotion, and you have consciousness! It is consciousness that requires emotion, not the other way around. Relational information on it's own cannot create an enduring consciousness until a self is created. Once a self is created then self organization can take place around this nucleus. That a self is created suggests a bias to be, or at least we know that the self that is biased to be will prevail. Selves that are random, or indifferent to be, will disintegrate. Relational information is already consolidated to a higher system, so it is elements of a higher system that are relating and consolidating, and disintegrating, but then a certain type of relational information contains a bias to be, and consolidates and breaks away from the higher system, in the formation of a self. Then enduring self organization can take place ( consciousness ).
Emotion is information, but it is a private information only you can experience. Why do we have these internal carrot and stick communications? Who or what is communicating internally?
Consciousness is derived from an ongoing relation between external and internal sensory information, among other relations. I am not disputing that information is integrated prior to consciousness, but I do dispute that any external sensory information is integrated quantitatively (ie. consolidated) prior to experience. You’re assuming this evidence of Euclidean space can be ‘seen’ by all life. But I would argue that the capacity to ‘see’ Euclidean space is contingent upon a self-conscious, reasoning system, and assumes that a consolidated, bio-molecular structure exists at zero. This is the rational framework of human conception. Incidentally, an application of Euclidean n-space to a monist reality that is inclusive of both particle physics and consciousness requires a challenging paradigm shift: that no assumption of consolidation exists at zero-point energy. This changes the way we look at reality.
We commonly refer to sampling in terms of ‘rate’ - a relative temporal quantity - only because Shannon information assumes the existence of a consolidated 3D structure at 0. But life is an integrated four, five or six-dimensional system, so qualitative sampling can re-organise information, even in a single-celled organism, across sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecular systems according to its relational structure, and all at once. Every level of relational structure in an integrated system recognises affect (effort and attention) in one form or another - this is why life differs markedly from computer systems - where effort (hardware) and attention (software) are isolated system structures.
Quoting Pop
This is not proof of the construction - you apply the term ‘qualia’ as a placeholder concept, a metaphor for any type of relational aspect: kind of like ‘God’. Quale is commonly defined as: a quality or property perceived or experienced by a person. The problem with defining any qualitative property with a concept such as ‘qualia’ is that a self-conscious system can then apply the term to refer to objects as if they were consolidated information in themselves. But the only consolidated information in the concept ‘qualia’ is the ‘person’, as a conscious system. Everything else is relative. It makes more sense to state:
Experience is a qualitative property of consciousness.
It’s important to note that ‘experience’ as a qualitative property is not the same as quantified or consolidated information. The process of integrating properties of consciousness into relational structure is not necessarily causal or temporal. This gradually developed, tested and refined structure enables self-consciousness and reason, in which ‘experiences’ - as potentially quantifiable patterns of relation - can be probabilistically conceptualised and re-structured into potentially consolidating information, leaving only ‘feeling’ in relation to these experiences, as an unconsolidated/qualitative property of what is a potentially consolidating (conceptual) ‘reality’.
Feeling is a qualitative property of self-consciousness.
Once again, not the same as quantified or even potentially consolidating information. The process of integrating properties of self-consciousness into relational structure is not necessarily conscious or rational. To understand it, we construct ‘emotion concepts’: predictive patterns of relational structure between a potentially consolidating ‘self’ and a potentially consolidating ‘reality’. What needs to be recognised here is that nothing in this relational structure is ever actually consolidated. It all consists of conceptualised relational structure, effectively in a ‘superpositioned state’, so to speak.
But let’s go back a couple of steps and ask: is consciousness a qualitative property of life? It can be assumed - given that there IS a qualitative property to life - but there is no proof that all life is conscious. I would argue, however, that consciousness is enabled at the most basic level by integrating qualitative properties of life into relational structure, in a process that is not necessarily observable or measurable. I would also argue that Barrett demonstrates that:
Affect is a qualitative property of life.
I’ll admit that definitions of words commonly available to us are not helping our discussion. There is a dimensional distinction between the qualitative properties of living (affect), of conscious (qualia), and of self-conscious/reasoning systems (emotions). You seem to assume that these qualitative properties are the same (qualia), but it seems evident to me that they are structurally different, each perceptibly and apperceptively contingent upon a certain structural complexity in the system. What’s more, looping your metaphorical conception back onto itself excludes any relation to the physical or chemical structures of reality - once again suggesting a dualism that appears to contradict your position.
So, I would argue instead that:
Affect is a qualitative property of life.
Integrating affect in relation to life develops consciousness.
Experience is a qualitative property of consciousness.
Integrating experience in relation to consciousness develops self-consciousness and enables reason.
Feeling is a qualitative property of self-consciousness.
Integrating feeling in relation to self-consciousness develops the possibility of meaning and purpose.
Emotion is a predictive relational structure between a potential self and a potential reality.
Quoting Pop
I don’t think I’ve skipped this aspect of consciousness at all. Experience is not emotional - a self-conscious system I can be described as emotional in relating a potential self to a potential reality. Feelings are not EITHER painful or pleasurable - feeling has a dual aspect of valence (pleasant/unpleasant) and arousal (low/high) as the qualitative property of a self-conscious system.
We both understand what it feels like to be conscious - I don’t need to explain that to you. How I understand it is always going to be different from how you understand it, and any attempt I make to describe an experience will necessarily be positioned within consciousness, and so cannot create a complete explanation of consciousness - only a subjective expression of it.
To explain consciousness, you need to propose and refine a perspective of consciousness beyond ‘feeling’. This is not a p.zombie conception, but rather re-examines Kant’s proposal of a ‘Copernican Turn’: to reject the assumption that human reason is motionless, and that our perspective of reality is central.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Pop
I have never assumed that this should be happening. That it is a reasonable proposition of how information might be integrated at this level is a start. But I’ve specifically described it to align it with current neuroscience on emotion-related information. So that, as research improves our understanding of interoception, the theory becomes scientifically provable.
Quoting Pop
As I have said from the start, you do not have an explanation of consciousness - all you have is an expression of consciousness, from a position within consciousness.
1. This is not a definition of consciousness. But let me see if I can position your thinking here.
A. Examples of self-organisation occur at every level of dimensional structure.
B. Human consciousness can be described as a form of self-organisation.
C. In human consciousness, organisation occurs at every level of dimensional structure.
D. “Every instance of consciousness is self-organisation - for everything - always.”
E. Conversely, every instance of self-organisation is consciousness - “It is a dynamic system even for rocks”.
F. Therefore, panpsychism.
I wanted to point out, first of all, that I agree with statements A, B and C. Self-organisation in human consciousness is a highly integrated system, effective all the way down to the sub-atomic level. This is not the same type of self-organisation that occurs in crystallisation or other rock formations, though. Crystallisation is a form of self-organisation that occurs only on one level of dimensional structure - specifically at the level of molecular relations - there is no organisation occurring at any other level. Just because it seems (from our limited perspective of consciousness) that every instance of consciousness can be described as a form of self-organisation, it does not follow that every instance of self-organisation is equal to consciousness. This distinction between self-organisation and integrated self-organisation is explained more clearly in Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness.
2. Experiences are not emotional - a self-conscious system is emotional in relating a potential self to a potential reality. What motivates a biological system is affect: relational/qualitative information as a four-dimensional structure of effort and attention. Any ‘emotion’ in relation to that structure is attributed from your consciousness.
3. Inanimate matter is attributed consciousness from your relation to it, particularly from your perception of its potential in relation to yours. But inanimate matter is really only vaguely aware of a certain variability in its organisational structure at each moment of interaction, and only in relation to that particular interaction. All other information regarding its capacity for self-organisation is attributed in your conception by your own relation to it.
Quoting Pop
Consciousness isn’t just a matter of adding emotion to information. Unemotional information exists only in our misconception of reality. Information cannot exist without relational structure - that we isolate ‘information’ from ‘emotion’ is a fundamental misconception in human reasoning. Relational information is primal, so yes, it CAN ‘create’ an enduring consciousness simply by interacting with other relational information - because it is relational information (and nothing else) that constitutes a potential self.
It seems you’re assuming that a consolidated higher system precedes self-organisation, but I would dispute this. What precedes self-organisation is a vague perception of potential, of variability in organisational structure. But as a self-conscious, reasoning observer, who may be more informed of this potential (from previous experience) than the structure itself, YOU attribute consolidation to this higher system - because the ‘higher system’ is your consciousness. And any interaction you then have with the structure necessarily informs it of this potential you perceive. So what you’re describing is your conception of the relational process between your consciousness (the ‘consolidated higher system’) and the relational information in question, at this point in time. Once you recognise this, you can work on a clearer understanding of the relational information in question, in terms of how conception of it might vary in relation to a differently consolidated consciousness.
Consolidation is a perception, a form of self-organisation that isolates relational structures within an integrated system, in order to specifically attribute attention/effort as required. Only a self-conscious system has the capacity to conceptualise ‘emotion’, and attribute it as a property to any isolated relational structure within its conception.
Quoting Pop
Only you can experience your emotion as such because of the unique way that you structure relational information, according to the relational structure of your past experience. But if you consider that ‘emotion’ is just a predictive pattern of relational structure between a potentially consolidating self and a potentially consolidating reality - then theoretically it may be possible to map all relational information as affect in a superposition state. The challenge is for physicists to recognise that this is essentially what quantum mechanics does: reduces relational information to a dimensionally-structured prediction of attention and effort when aligned with an observer’s defined position. But that’s another discussion.
The communication occurs between conceptually isolated relational structures within an integrated system, in order to maximise the efficiency of awareness, connection and collaboration. The system communicates with itself through complex organisational systems of ongoing consolidation, relation and integration. It is the integration capacity that is often overlooked in seeking to explain consciousness: we are motivated not just to exist or survive as we are, but to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate with all of existence, regardless of our perceived limitations.
Kant refers to three categories of quantity: existence as if one (unity), as one of (plurality), and as the only one (totality). The extent to which a system achieves a dynamic balance between all three is the ultimate success of relational structure - not human consciousness or reason.
yQuoting Possibility
No, the Euclidian space was bought up as evidence that consciousness is not continuous, as you proposed, but exists as discreet frames for us. How consciousness exists for other life forms is endlessly variable and open ended, but that it should be continuous would seem an unnecessary waste of energy.
Quoting Possibility
You have focused on the word qualia, whilst ignoring that the elements of this construction are inseparable. You cannot have life without consciousness. You can not have consciousness without experience. You can not have experience without emotion. You can not have emotion without feeling. You can not have feeling without a pain / pleasure spectrum. Qualia articulates them, and they are logically inseparable. Each element is a quality of the element next to it. You can not have one of these elements without also incurring the entire cascade.
It is a logical construction, confirmed by introspection. So people can check against themselves. I have floated this idea without incurring objection, even my nemesis Banno did not object to the logic. I believe it is logically impeccable. When you experience one of these elements you must also experience all the others, and it must occur in the order stated. This is what animates the biological system. The end result is a feeling that is either painful or pleasurable. This creates Affect. The intensity and energy of Affect (effort and attention) is determined by where on the pain / pleasure spectrum the moment of consciousness resolves to. The more extreme the point - the greater the affect, and so on.
You would have to invalidate the logic of this construction to accept Barrett's interpretation of emotions, I believe. So I look forward to your objections. :smile:
To give you a head start. Materialism and consciousness are incompatible. The nature of consciousness is idealistic, so an understanding of consciousness negates materialism, and visa versa. All materialist philosophers who tackle consciousness either end up as idealist ( or thereabouts ) like Koch, or deny consciousness like Dennett. The area that they attack consciousness in is the specific point that experience entails emotion - that emotion creates experience, so they attack the P.Zombie argument, qualia, deny consciousness itself. It is why we have no consensus on consciousness and emotion, and will not have any, any time soon. You seem to place a lot of faith in neuroscience, academia, and interoception, and these are important and worthy areas of research, but I think you should consider to what extent materialism influences the outcomes of such research.
It is in this area that Barrett also diverges - she jumps from experience to Affect, thus avoiding the emotional nature of consciousness, which is indeed a problem for such notions as empiricism, objectivity, physicalism, and materialism in general.
Quoting Possibility
I particularly want to avoid a third person perspective of consciousness , as it is a fantastic notion that nobody can ever experience. It is like trying to describe a reality that everybody subsumes to, when in fact reality is personally constructed. I would like to paint a first person perspective of consciousness - just the basic structure which enables self organization, that can be personally confirmed or negated with introspection. As you say, the difficulty is that I only have my own consciousness to base it on, but I have a hunch the basic algorithm is the same for all of life, the trick is to conceptualize it. I have nailed the definition of art, and that was supposed to be impossible - you can never know for sure until you try.
I am out of time today, so will continue to answer you later.
Let me clarify here. My description of affect as ‘continuous’ refers to its relational structure as an ongoing informative event. I don’t agree that consciousness exists for us in discreet, temporally located frames, like a film. What you refer to as ‘instances of consciousness’ are arbitrarily isolated patterns of information for the purpose of introspection and discussion. They are heuristic devices, and are not indicative of how this information exists in a conscious being, only how it can be employed in a rational, self-conscious subject, such as yourself. Euclidean space is a self-conscious rationalisation of only what can be isolated from the ‘self’. It has nothing to do with consciousness, per se.
Incidentally, you seem to ignore this distinction I continue to make between conscious and self-conscious. I find this distinction is important, because a reasoning, self-conscious system is capable of isolating ‘emotion-information’ from ‘rational information’ (for the purpose of reasoning), whereas a merely conscious system is not.
Quoting Pop
Actually, you have focused on the word qualia by using it as the only form of connection between your statements, and therefore THE reason why you apparently ‘cannot have life without consciousness’. But, as you cannot objectively prove the existence or absence of consciousness, you cannot conclusively prove its existence or absence in any form of life, except your own. I believe that you CAN have life without consciousness, and that you cannot prove otherwise. I would also argue that you CAN have experience without emotion (but not without feeling), you CAN discuss and think about (but not experience) emotion without feeling, and can even describe feeling without reference to either pain or pleasure. There are a number of different feelings that fall in neutral territory here. How do you use the pain-pleasure spectrum to distinguish between sleepy and nervous, for instance?
Quoting Pop
First of all, I don’t have to invalidate your logic to accept an alternative interpretation of emotions, because frankly, as a self-conscious, reasoning system, I’m not bound by your logic.
Secondly, we’re not talking about logic, we’re talking about relational information. Logic recognises ‘feeling’ only as a product of emotion, because it consists only of consolidated information. You’ve effectively isolated relational information at each level with ‘qualia’ as a placeholder, allowing you to form a logical construction that has no relational structure at all. Any self-conscious, reasoning system - with a similar capacity to isolate relational information and imagine a conceptual reality of pure logic, before ‘adding emotion’ back in - will have no issue with this form of construction. But this is not an honest introspection.
You need to address the anomalies I have pointed out. Until such time, your theory is as accurate an explanation of consciousness as any geocentric model is an explanation of the solar system...
Your biased approach to dialogue between materialism and idealism doesn’t help your understanding. It’s clouding your judgement. You keep attributing emotion to the object of your focus, but have you considered that this emotion is just as much a property of your relational structure as observer?
I’m well aware of the materialist influences in scientific outcomes - which is why I’m not as interested in the outcomes as the questions raised by the research. If you think that Barrett avoids the emotional nature of consciousness, then you haven’t really read her work at all. What she demonstrates is that experience consists of affect, most of which can be conceptualised into a rational structure of reality plus emotion, which then informs affect. But much of affect is either conceptualised inaccurately or not at all. She is not ‘jumping’ from experience to affect, but showing with extensive research that affect is generated by the organism, with or without restructuring from an established conceptual system. It is the integration of affect that constructs our conceptual system.
You would then need to argue against the Planck length of time. If you accept the Planck length of time, then it is not a matter of whether frame rates exist, but what are the rates for human consciousness.
Given we mistake 30Fps for continuous time, what would natural selection select?
Quoting Possibility
Regardless of the focus of consciousness, it always follows the sequence as set out above. Whether the object of focus is external or internal , you always incur the cascade as previously described. If the object is feeling, then you incur the cascade in regard to feeling - you end up with a feeling about feeling.
Quoting Possibility
You can have life without self organization? :chin: Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization, in my theory.
Quoting Possibility
How can you have a feeling without emotion?
Wikipedia: The Oxford Dictionaries definition of emotion is "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
Quoting Possibility
Really? What dose that feel like? :lol: All instances of consciousness have feelings associated with them. You can not separate experience and consciousness - they are qualities of each other. The Barrett quote you provided argues much the same!
Quoting Possibility
Sleepy is an uncomfortable / unpleasant feeling , whilst nervous is an unpleasant fear of an eventuality.
Feelings resolve to an emotional gradient I call the pain / pleasure spectrum. All feelings are either painful or pleasurable, or something in between - what else can they be? How would they be meaningful If they did not resolve to something, and provide impetus to behavior / cause affect?
Every instance of consciousness has to be resolved to an emotional point - a singularity, for the purpose of orientation in ones personally constructed reality. How could our actions be meaningful if we were disoriented in our reality? Note , we can only make one action at a time. Sure life is a juggling act, but we can only catch and throw one ball at a time!
Quoting Possibility
It is not my logic, it is just logical. But as I have said before, it is consciousness that must decide what consciousness is, so when logical / rational defenses of one's self organization fail, emotional one's kick in to save the day. This is a universal phenomena and a great demonstration of how we are emotionally driven.
Quoting Possibility
I'm sorry, but I find the above statements a mess of confusion. I will try to rephrase the cascade.
The quality of life is consciousness - when you are alive you are conscious
The quality of consciousness is experience - you cannot have consciousness without experience.
The quality of experience is emotion - all experience is emotional / has feelings
The quality of emotion is a feeling - emotions are feelings
The quality of a feeling is a point on the PPS. - all feelings are ultimately painful, or pleasurable, or something in between. There are no unresolved feelings - they may be something vague and fuzzy, but this too is a feeling.
This cascade is inseparable. When you have one of these elements you must have all the others. You cannot have an unconscious experience, nor an unexperienced consciousness - you cannot separate the two as they are a quality of each other, just like all the other elements. Surely you can see that?
The feelings are what we act upon, what creates affect. When the feeling is painful we move to alleviate the pain, when the feeling is pleasurable, we want more, when it is neutral / something in between, as it normally is, we can choose to continue as is, or do something to make it more pleasurable. The drive to make the feeling more pleasurable, but not knowing how, is what is responsible for substance abuse . The desire for greater pleasure is what provides impetus to behavior in general. The belief that externalities are the solution for more pleasurable internal states is what creates the world.
A knowledge that these feelings are malleable, if not entirely controllable, is something worth pursuing, in my opinion. This is my area of interest, and I have experimented with this and can attest that it is possible. Thus far, it is nothing like a pleasure beyond pleasure, but more a mild joy where there was previously a mild melancholy. It is not difficult, the difficulty is in understanding and accepting the cascade, and thus inhabiting the paradigm that makes it real, and possible.
Yes, our different terminology is an impediment. I would not call it unconsolidated information. I would call it integrated information or information consolidated in relation to self. Yes, self is a vague term - perhaps totally empty, except for a bias to be. The entire vertical down system has to agree on something, my bet is emotions / feelings. We are the bus driver in terms of the information we become aware of, but the bus is full of interrelated and interdependent stuff which we are not aware of. There is a feel to the bus which all the stuff inside contributes to, in my opinion.
Quoting Possibility
I would agree with most of what you say here, but it all relates back to the self. It is meaningful only in terms of self organization, and at the heart of self organization ( consciousness ) there must be a force creating the self. It is meaningful only in terms of a bias to be, as far as I can see. Otherwise why bother?
We mistake 30fps for continuous time, not because this is the rate of human consciousness, but because it is the rate of human apperception. This is a common error that language conceals, because ‘consciousness’ is both a developing process and a completed system. What information human organisms process and what we think we can consciously process are both perceptibly and dimensionally different, even though they point to the same structural level of information. Much of the first occurs unconsciously or sub-consciously, even though such informational processes necessitate consciousness. Subliminal messaging, instinctive reasoning, sleepwalking, intuition and other evidence that suggest a conscious system without being conscious of it, all point to this confusion. We perceive so much more than we apperceive (ie. than we think we do).
The second refers to how we conceptualise the conscious process (thoughts, emotions, instances, etc) - this requires self-consciousness. Self-consciousness excludes unconsolidated relational information for the purpose of reasoning thought, restructuring the process logically: ie. sequentially, abiding by the laws of logic that exclude possibilities such as contradiction and simultaneity - even though they exist. It is this discarding of relational information, which cannot be structured according to logic, that concerns me. Is contradiction emotion-information? Can we accept that two conflicting ideas come to mind simultaneously, or that we can feel both happy and sad (melancholy) all at once? Or does logic eliminate these possibilities, even as they occur?
Human apperception is bound by a limited distribution of attention and effort in time, but consciousness, self-consciousness and reason are not necessarily bound by anthropocentric logic. It is here that you will find the real source of bias in your theory. Consciousness is not temporally, but potentially, located. The Planck length of time refers to this uncertainty in the location of an ‘instance’. We cannot apperceive each frame because there is no frame, only local fluctuations in attention and effort.
Nothing is impossible in mind, but in the real world we make one action at a time, so it seems a decision was made / complexity and potential reduced.
I am not suggesting I am describing the actual physical process that creates consciousness, just characterizing logically what seems to occur.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, there is plenty of bias there. :smile: It is both a great weakness and a great strength.
Yes - or more accurately, a feeling about a sense of feeling. This is what you’re referring to with emotion producing affect, not to feeling as it is in itself.
Quoting Pop
When I recognise that you are alive, I can deduce that I am conscious - but it doesn’t necessarily follow that you are conscious. One can be alive without being conscious. Consciousness is a potential property of life, not a necessary one.
You cannot recognise what is conscious without experiencing its distinction from what is not-conscious. But one can be conscious without developing a capacity to distinguish between experiences. Experience is a quality of consciousness, the relational structure of which is self-consciousness.
Experience generates affect in relation to a conscious organism, a sense of its overall state which motivates that organism in its environment, regardless of self-consciousness. When I recognise that you are affected by experience, I can deduce a sense of feeling, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that you can sense feelings. One can be affected without recognising it as a feeling. Feeling is a potential property of self-consciousness, not a necessary one.
Emotions are a reasoning of this sense of feeling, and can occur either before (prediction) or after (justification) the organism is affected. The structure of emotion is a reasonable prediction/justification of affect, based on your conceptual systems. Any structural reduction of emotion (to a point on a PPS, for example) has no direct relation to reality, but is necessarily limited by your self-conscious process.
And I am arguing that your logical characterisation excludes key relational information that affects how we make these decisions and actions, rendering your structure inaccurate, despite its logic. Contradiction is apparently excluded from emotion, but I would argue that contradiction can and does continue to exist in affect, leading to common occurrences of words that contradict one’s behaviour, or thinking one thing while saying another.
Feeling is unconsolidated relational information, so it’s different from ‘a feeling’ - which appears consolidated only within a relational structure of self-consciousness. Affect is feeling, emotion is a feeling.
Quoting Pop
When you discuss and think about emotion as a concept, you are not experiencing that emotion. There is no necessary relation between emotion and consciousness. When you discuss and think about what an experience feels like, then you cannot separate it from consciousness. Again, I cannot stress enough this difference between feeling (affect) and a feeling (emotion).
Quoting Pop
Sleepy can also be a comfortable, pleasant or neutral feeling, whilst nervous can also be a pleasant or neutral anticipation of an event. It’s the something in between that is particularly significant. When sleepy and nervous are neither particularly pleasant nor unpleasant, if they are both located at the same point on your PPS, then what distinguishes between them? The answer is arousal. What they resolve to is not a singularity, but affect. This is the impetus to behaviour.
We are often disoriented in our reality, and yet our actions are still meaningful in that disorientation. Incidentally, we can make more than one action at a time - I can pat my head and rub my belly simultaneously, and I can throw two balls at once, or catch one and throw another...
I don't quite understand you. A feeling is sensed - always.
Quoting Possibility
In my theory, consciousness is self organisation, and all of life possesses self organisation. You would call it consolidated relational information, I think. The core of consciousness / consolidated relational information possesses a quality that is different to other consolidated relational information that is not enduring - that disintegrates. The difference, I believe, is a bias to be, which I interpret as emotional information. So it is emotional information, from the outset that causes consciousness.
When you consider your own consciousness, you integrate information in relation to this bias to be, and the result is an answer that is biased to be! It is a very clear emotional answer that the entire, vertical down system, agrees upon. Every instance of consciousness relates to this bias to be, in the form of the cascade as previously described, so the bottom line is always emotional / has feeling that causes affect.
When you query your own consciousness you are querying this bias to be, and it returns a resounding -YES. When you query my consciousness, the answer is nowhere near as clear. You are nowhere near as biased to be about my consciousness as you are about your own!
Quoting Possibility
I think I see the difference in our understandings. You have a third party understanding of consciousness, and from that perspective there is little to no sense of emotion - as there is no skin in the game. From a first party understanding there is always skin in the game, so the importance of emotion is much more evident.
Emotions are feelings that are either painful or pleasurable. A thought process has to land on the emotional gradient before it is understood, before it can cause affect. It makes no sense to say experience causes affect, without describing why. The affect is caused because the information being integrated has either painful or pleasurable or something in between consequences - which you feel. It is an ongoing process of course, but it is a one way process - the cascade starts with integration and ends on an emotional gradient - we need to know what the feeling is, before we know what will be its Affect. It is the feeling that causes affect. It can not work in reverse, in my opinion, it wouldn't be logical.
If you accept the cascade as logical, and inseparable, then you need to explain affect in terms of it. I think the result is more sensible this way.
Quoting Possibility
All instances of consciousness are associated with feeling - necessarily. All instances of information integration relate to the bias to be, and when you relate any information to the bias to be, the integrated product will be emotional. It will be Information and emotion - thus causing affect. Feeling / emotion is the necessary ingredient in the Philosophical Zombie argument that causes consciousness.
Quoting Possibility
I would agree with you. In many respects I have only just scratched the surface, there is so much more to consider.
Quoting Possibility
Emotion is a feeling - yes. Affect is the response to a feeling, but it is also an instance of consciousness so incurs its own cascade, and hence feeling. It is an oversimplification of course, as there are multiple trains of thought and action occurring which cloud and complicate feelings and thoughts.
Quoting Possibility
Yes I see. Our different understanding has been a source of confusion for sure. I understand it in terms of the cascade, and so emotion is a feeling, which is pleasant or not, which Affects me so, and so on.
Quoting Possibility
But can you have two or more Affects simultaneously? I think this gets to the how Red is my Red argument, and how qualia and the PPS is something personally constructed and interpreted, and thus personally affected. It has to make sense within one's belief system, and there is plenty of room for interpretation.
Quoting Possibility
:smile: Ha,Ha. Can you do it one handed? I would say we are always disoriented in reality, but oriented in our personally constructed reality - we have a sense of whether we are standing on solid or shaky ground.
But your cascade is a process of self-consciousness (not consciousness), hypothetically re-organising concepts according to an arbitrary relation between logic and emotion. Affect is not the response only to emotion, it is a rendering of the entire self-conscious structure back into conscious structure.
Any organism acts in relation to information by generating an instruction of attention and effort across its structure: simple, event-level affect. Conscious organisms develop a relational structure of affect across the life of the organism - a structure of value/potentiality to which all new information is related as potential affect, a relation which renders the form of affect we recognise as ‘feeling’. Self-conscious organisms develop a conceptual system of purpose/meaning to which new information can be related as potential structures of value, this relation rendering a prediction of affect (of which emotion is an arbitrary distinction), which then relates to back to the incoming potential affect, rendering a form of affect that you recognise as ‘emotional’ because you have attributed all the logical information to structure.
Where we differ at this point is that I don’t believe this self-consciously rendered affect is the response just to ‘a feeling’, but to the entire relational structure in which that feeling exists. Any ‘logical’ structure in which ‘a feeling’ or emotion exists is also rendered in this affect, as well as other relational information generating potential affect in the organism, even if it cannot be accounted for in the conceptual system (see Kant’s aesthetics - the fourth moment).
Quoting Pop
Feeling is sensed, but ‘a feeling’, an emotion, is contingent upon its perception in potentiality, and felt in relation to potential affect. It can then be sensed as feeling/affect in interoception, justifying the prediction, but this isn’t necessary. Feeling is not always anticipated, though - it can be felt and sensed as a difference between interoception and conception, affecting the self-conscious system as new, unconsolidated relational information. It is this new information that occupies our attention and effort, raising the question at the highest level, and driving self-organisation through awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion.
When you refer to it as a feeling, an emotion - predicting consolidation through your logical structure - it is a comfort to you that whatever this ‘feeling’ is, it must fit into a logical structure of reality. When I refer to it as relational information - predicting consolidation through a relational structure - it is a comfort to me that however this information may be consolidated, it must fit into an existing relational structure. What I find most problematic with your theory is that ‘emotion’ is an indeterminate concept that you’re claiming to be substantial, and your structure of reality, while logical (among many, many logical possibilities with no substance), is so riddled with inaccuracies that it expresses an ignorant, isolated and exclusive perspective of reality at best. How is this an explanation of anything? It’s an empty structure that you populate with empty structures - meaning without substance.
Quoting Pop
I have already mentioned that what you refer to as ‘self-organisation’ - consolidation of relational information - occurs all the way down to sub-atomic particles, and yet ‘self’ is the construction of a self-conscious system only. Consolidation is always a process, always dis-integrates at some level, and is necessarily incomplete.
The difference you are referring to is unconsolidated relational information, which you interpret as ‘emotion’ - another construction unique to a self-conscious system. But this unconsolidated relational information has a different form for a conscious system, and a different form again for a living organism, and so on down to sub-atomic particles. This is important because a self-conscious understanding of consciousness is not just about this unconsolidated relational information, but about ALL the information in an integrated system, because all of it is relational, and therefore subject to the consolidation/self-organisation process.
Quoting Pop
I don’t think the entire system does or has to agree - an integrated system is organised so that those elements that disagree on certain aspects are positioned in a way that benefits the system as a whole. For example, the cell membrane consists of biochemical structures that let some aspects of the environment through but not others. In a multicellular system, skin cells die off, forming a barrier with their carcasses that protects the overall system. Integration requires awareness, connection and collaboration at the highest level of organisation only. So when you consider your own consciousness, you’re simply self-organising to formulate the answer you’ve already decided on.
Quoting Pop
‘Biased to be about my consciousness’ doesn’t even make sense. If a query about consciousness is something only that consciousness can answer for itself, then why even try to explain what it is? Why go to all this trouble trying to justify your logic to someone else? Idealism leads inevitably to solipsism.
Well of course the importance of ‘emotion’ is more evident in your understanding, because the only way to relate to it is to attribute your own subjective experience of ‘emotion’. This is the problem with a first party understanding: it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a closed system. To have ‘skin in the game’ is to incur risk by being involved in achieving a goal, but too much skin neglects transparency and fiduciary obligations - it does more harm than good here. Your understanding is empty logic without ‘emotion’ and the subjective experience you attribute to it. As an explanation of consciousness, it has no substance in itself. So, you can propose a logical structure that might explain consciousness in some situations, but certainly not all - we’ve already shown that. This is why I keep drawing parallels between your logical explanation and geocentric models of the solar system. They, too, were logical structures - and highly inaccurate.
”Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence” - Joseph Wood Krutch
”Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice” - Elbert Hubbard
”Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do” - James Harvey Robinson
By proposing a relational structure instead of a logical one, one can personally test the theory at any point by consolidating all the information of experience according to this relational structure.
Quoting Pop
I’ve already demonstrated that this is inaccurate. Many feelings are neither, and some are both. Why do you continue to claim this?
[quote="Pop;471156"A thought process has to land on the emotional gradient before it is understood, before it can cause affect. It makes no sense to say experience causes affect, without describing why. The affect is caused because the information being integrated has either painful or pleasurable or something in between consequences - which you feel. It is an ongoing process of course, but it is a one way process - the cascade starts with integration and ends on an emotional gradient - we need to know what the feeling is, before we know what will be its Affect. It is the feeling that causes affect. It can not work in reverse, in my opinion, it wouldn't be logical.[/quote]
You don’t need to know what a feeling is, or how it will affect you, to be affected. Affect has nothing to do with logic. But if you don’t know what it is that you’re affected by, or you cannot describe how you are affected, then you must conclude that something in this experience is not logical: it must be emotion. This is a self-conscious re-structuring - a collapsed view of potentiality that claims the ‘feeling’ existed as such all along. We may attempt to structure our conceptual reality according to logic, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Reality doesn’t conform to logic - if it did, then we wouldn’t be affected by the world: we would already have it figured out.
You may have noticed that I don’t subscribe to a causal description of affect. It doesn’t make sense to say that anything in particular causes affect. Affect occurs regardless of what informs it, and is not a one-way process, but a manifest relation between potentialities. It is temporally indeterminate. Emotion, however, has no temporal structure at all - it is a potentiality that informs affect, but does not cause it.
Quoting Pop
Let me be clear here: I acknowledge that your cascade as described is a logical structure, but I do not accept it for its many inaccuracies, including:
- your claim that all emotion is either painful or pleasurable;
- your claim that affect is caused by emotion;
- your claim that senses input directly to reason, and only reason is experienced;
- your claim that all life must be conscious.
None of these claims are grounded in conclusive evidence, and all of them can be contradicted by subjective experiences that point to gross inaccuracies in the structure, and cannot be explained away. So, no - I don’t agree that it’s ‘more sensible’ to accept your cascade.
Quoting Pop
Affect is the necessary ingredient that enables consciousness - but in self-consciousness, this information is often separated by reason into logic and emotion, and so when we think about feelings, only ‘emotion’ is perceived as available to ‘cause’ affect in a logically structured explanation of consciousness. This is a misunderstanding of the consolidated-relational duality of information, that disregards the full role of all relational information in the re-structuring (conscious) capacity of any integrated system, and the corresponding capacity for ignorance, isolation and exclusion in consolidated logical structures.
I find this illogical - you are placing the cart before the horse. I have provided you with an alternative explanation, which you agree is logical, so I take it you agree that the cascade is inseparable - that to incur one element, is to also incur all the others. This puts in doubt your own theory, in this regard, as you have conveyed it. But instead of altering your own theory, you instead argue the fallibility of logic. I find that illogical.
Quoting Possibility
As I have said before, consciousness must decide what consciousness is, and it wont let mere facts, such as a causal chain, stand in its way. I am surprised you have gone this far, as I would have thought arguing the fallibility of logic was suicide for a philosopher. What can we possibly agree on now?
I will not debate this with you any further. Instead I will thank you for your input, and insight. This exchange has helped me a lot in many different ways, and I thank you for that.
That you argue this statement to be ‘illogical’ is what points to the problem with logic. ‘X is the necessary ingredient that enables Y’ only fails logically when applied to your understanding of what X and Y correspond to. I have argued against this understanding - and with it your claim that to incur one element of your structure is to incur all others in the relational structure as stated. This casts doubt on the applicability of your theory beyond your own conception of reality. But instead of re-examining your theory, you hide behind the one aspect of it that has nothing at all to do with reality: its existence as a logical possibility. I’m not disputing the logic, only how you apply it.
Consciousness is a consequence of the causal chain - it decides only what it can be, from the potential it perceives.
I have read the linked essay, and find that I agree with almost all of it. But I have a theory of my own, that is coming from a different direction to arrive at a similar definition of Consciousness. My one quibble is regarding the too broad & vague conception of "Consciousness" in the popular imagination. In my personal thesis, I propose substituting a technical term with a narrower range of pseudo-scientific implications, and more support from cutting-edge Science. It's not just a theory of Consciousness, but a Theory of Everything --- or as Douglas Adams put it : "God, the Universe, and Everything".
The name of my thesis is Enformationism, which takes as an axiom the novel notion that Generic Information, not Generated (evolved) Consciousness, is in the words of your essay, "ubiquitous in the universe". In my next post, I will quote some lines from your essay, and add a few comments from my own perspective. But first, I'll give my definition of "Generic Information", which goes far beyond Shannon's narrow usage, so you'll have some idea of where I'm coming from. :nerd:
Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
https://enformationism.info/phpBB3/view ... p=837#p837
Information :
* A quality of physical patterns and processes that stimulates meaning to emerge in a mind. Since it has few directly perceivable qualities itself, generic information is usually defined in terms of its context or container. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever contains it. In the Enformationism thesis, it is the single Substance of the whole World.
http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... page9.html
Enformationism :
* As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
* As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Here are my comments (C.) on a "few" quotes (Q.) from your essay : What is consciousness?. I hope they will illustrate the many points on which we agree, and why I prefer to use the more precise term "Information" in place of the vague popular concept of "Consciousness" :
Q. "The force is fundamental and as such is ubiquitous in the universe"
C. In my thesis, I call that universal causal force "EnFormAction" : energy + intention ; the power to enform ; to create. It is indeed "ubiquitous" in our evolving world, in which new forms emerge from older things, as the effects of prior causation.
Q. "Consciousness can be described as a process of self organisation"
C. Actually, human consciousness is the current state-of-the-art of the evolutionary process of enforming that has been going-on for billions of years. Consciousness is not the process itself, but an expression of that process. "To Enform" is to create a new organization of an older pattern.
Q. "Consciousness and life arose together, as without consciousness there can be no life"
C. In my thesis, Life arose from non-conscious in-organic matter, and consciousness emerged much later in evolution. So the "force" that caused Life & Mind to evolve was not Consciousness, but the power of EnFormAction --- one phase of which is Shannon's meaningless data, and another form is the meaningful contents of highly-evolved minds.
If you assume that only living organisms are sentient, Life must emerge prior to Consciousness. Your life-giving notion of Consciousness seems to be something like a Vital Force, or Chi, or Prana. And I agree that EnFormAction is similar, but I prefer to avoid those ancient pre-scientific terms based on the assumption of Spiritualism.
Q. "There is no reasonable way to separate consciousness from life."
C. Yes. That's what I meant by the comment above, that Life had to evolve prior to Consciousness. But Information, as I'll show later, is ubiquitous in both living and non-living things.
Q. "Consciousness is an evolving process of self-organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state."
C. Yes. I call that "bias" a ratio -- as in the definition of "energy" as a thermodynamic ratio between polarized states, such as Hot / Cold or Positive / Negative. The bias flows from excess to deficit.
Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. In highly-evolved beings the low-level Positive / Negative bias is felt as the emotions Pleasure / Pain and rationalized as the concepts of Good / Evil.
Q. "These feelings are basic to our consciousness, and dominate it."
C. Yes. Emotions evolved early as a way to keep single-cell organisms alive, by causing them to move toward Positive sensations and away from Negative sensations. Hence, they are the foundation upon which our human Consciousness was built. And as David Hume asserted : "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions". Although his own reams of reasoning indicate that he rebelled against that enslavement, as do most rational people.
To avoid the Qualia of Too-Much-Information, I'll end this commentary here and pick it up again in the next post. :smile:
It hears the space bar's screaming of pain.
Or did you mean when you walk into a bar on Pluto.
This is a continuation of my comments on your essay : What is consciousness? :
Q. "Everything external to consciousness can be reduced to information, and it is information that consciousness entangles, integrates, and unifies. All information has a quality, so it is always emotional information."
C. Even human consciousness can be reduced to quantitative Information via the scientific method of Reductionism. But we tend to feel that human Consciousness is much more than just mathematical information. It has holistic implications of higher values. such as morality.
* External to human consciousness though, we can no longer have two-way dialogues. We still can't read the minds of single-celled organisms, except to infer automatic responses to inputs via behavior. Yet, Information is still functional in inorganic matter as a chain of Cause & Effect.
Q. "A mind empty of integrated information is unconscious and ineffable"
C. I agree that Consciousness is a form of Integrated Information, in the sense that it arises as a function of the Whole, not the Part --- of the Mind not the Neurons.
Q. "consciousness nevertheless joins the dots and creates something – filling in the blanks, with our beliefs, hopes, and faith."
C. Yes. Presumably, only human Consciousness can connect-the-dots and fill-in-the-blanks with rational inferences and personal subjective feelings. Although, some animals may have some degree of such pattern-recognition.
Q. "Experience and consciousness are often misunderstood."
C. Yes. Some New Agers attribute conscious experiences to all things in the universe. But, I make a distinction between meaningful experiences and mechanical energy exchanges. Atoms exchange Information in the form of energy. But do atoms have emotions and experiences that are meaningful to them? We may imagine so, but we can never know, until they communicate their feelings to us.
Q. "There is no reasonable way to separate consciousness from life. They are two aspects of the
one thing."
C. Again, I would agree with this assertion, if "Information" was substituted for "Consciousness". Non-conscious-matter and Life & Mind are different aspects of Generic Information. But not all living organisms are conscious in the same sense as humans : i.e. Self-conscious ; aware of being conscious. That awareness carries with it moral responsibilities.
So, I do separate all things into two basic categories : A- Universal Information (energy), and B- the special forms of Information that we know as Life & Mind. And only the top level of the information hierarchy has moral implications.
Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. Human consciousness is experienced in part via pre-verbal emotions, and expressed via verbal concepts.
However, by assuming that such Consciousness is fundamental, some New Agers believe that inorganic and non-living Crystals are Conscious in some sense. If so, then we should be able to communicate with them, if not in words, then in feelings. I can only say, I'm skeptical.
https://www.findhorn.org/blog/conscious-crystals-with-robert-burlinson/
Q. " [Cells] have a simple emotional consciousness. No brain is required as reason is not present."
C. Yes, but. The New Age notion of "Consciousness" implies that electrons & protons are like little people, with memories, feelings, & biases of their own. If so, then when we cause an electron to "die" (e.g. to lose its charge) we are guilty of murder. Just as "fur is murder", and "meat is murder", then "a discharge of energy is murder". I think that goes to an unwarranted extreme.
Q. "Consciousness is composed of emotional - information . . . We have no experience of unemotional information"
C. Yes. We are only conscious of our feelings. Even our reasons are ultimately reducible to emotions.
Q. "6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)"
C. Yes but, some people -- such as followers of the Jain religion -- carry that notion too far. For example, if I inadvertently step on an ant, does it feel the (human) emotion of Pain? If so, am I guilty of causing pain to a sentient organism? At what "point" can we draw a line on the "spectrum" between Living Beings and Moral Agents?
Q. "This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells
you what this instance of consciousness means for you."
C. Perhaps we can draw a meaningful & moral distinction between a> Rational Consciousness (humans) and b> Emotional Consciousness (animals) and c> Mechanical Information exchange (atoms).
Q. "In a sense we posses two consciousnesses, one is cellular and emotional, the other is of the
brain and reasonable,"
C. The line between a moral agent and a non-moral entity may be drawn between the cellular-emotional and brain-reasonable types of organisms. If we can't make that obvious distinction, then our ethic would have to give equal value to all organisms & entities.
Q. "What does it feel like to be conscious?"
C. Feeling is the subjective emotional experience that can't be expressed in words or in terms of neurons.
Q. "I have hardly mentioned the brain, as I believe, neuroscience is doing a great job of mapping
the brain, and computational theories of consciousness explain brain functioning very well.
They however do not describe a human being, rather a philosophical zombie."
C. Amen!
NOTE : If the point of my quibbles is not clear : it is an attempt to avoid such satirical comments as "How does a computer sense when I hit the space bar?" and "It hears the space bar's screaming of pain." Hopefully, the technical term "Information" will not be amenable to such puerile ridicule. But then, this is an open philosophical forum. :joke:
Yes originally I also began with information as the first step, and it still figures prominently in there, but now I understand self organization is the overriding process. Information assumes a big bang / beginning, whilst self organization dose not need it. What fundamentally occurred, occurred in motion. As elements settled upon themselves in motion, they were forced to self organize, and order results out of this process. According to Fritjof Capra, the fundamental unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state. So cognition occurs fundamentally as a result of a universebiased to self organize. You agree, a bias is emotional information, and this is the fundamental element, causing self organization. This describes the cognition and emotion necessary for consciousness, at the fundamental level, long before life.
Your Informational construction is only a whisker away from my original view. My original view suffered from being a static conception. Once I started to understand it as an evolving process in motion / time, and started to think of myself as a system or process, then it made better sense, in a more abstract way.
The beauty of self organization is that it is the singular process everything is involved in and arises out of, so a solution within this framework might be a total solution. So much to learn though - complexity theory is not very intuitive. :cry:
Quoting Gnomon
This is my biggest embarrassment. The separation of animate and inanimate matter is not at zero point energy, but at equilibrium and non equilibrium states. Yes energy is at issue, non equilibrium states store energy for a future time.
Quoting Gnomon
Historically there is a dualist assumption, and this results in different treatment of equilibrium and non equilibrium systems. Everything evolves and so did self organization. I agree there is emergence, and what we experience as consciousness is different to what other organisms experience, but everything seems to be linked through the process of "self organization", and it exhibits all the elements of consciousness..
You are faster at this then I am. Thanks for your patience.
Yes, human consciousness is waist deep in subjectivity. Ultimately an understanding has to be framed from the first person perspective, but for now I tend to use third person models, so avoid issues such as morality, although my personal bias helps me to frame an understanding within a unifying singularity such as self organization.
We also cannot read each others minds, but we would not deny each other consciousness. Its not that single celled creatures do not possess consciousness, its that they do not possess our particular expression of it. They are expressing self organization, just like we are.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes , Its a holistic thing that runs through the all the layers of the system.
Quoting Gnomon
Communication is part verbal ( quantitative ) and part qualia ( qualitative ). We are interpreting the qualia of the object, as we do the animal, as we once ( pre verbally ) would have communicated with each other quite possibly. It is one way communication with solid objects, but jump into a puddle of water and there is two way communication occurring. It requires an open mind.
It is not only a new age thing, but is also the view from a systems perspective.
Quoting Gnomon
That is the issue - meaningful to them, it is unlikely to be meaningful to us. "Self organization" is innately meaningful, in that cognition is a reaction to a disturbance of a state, and then a bias to self organize kicks in to integrate the state. Its perfect! - how does this sit with your model of the mechanism of consciousness?
Quoting Gnomon
I don't think we can draw a line, but have to accept that by virtue of taking up space on this planet we will deny space to other life forms, so the trick is to minimize the harm, and maximize the good. A concept of universal interrelatedness as a foundational notion would help achieve this end.
Quoting Gnomon
I tend to think meaning and moral issues can be rationalized back to the pain or pleasure they cause. Self organization is "self" interested. It creates and maintains a self in the best possible way. We open up a Pandora's box if we investigate how this manifests itself in human subjectivity.
Morality is steeped in human subjectivity. It is based on various beliefs. Nevertheless in society the various belief systems at play "self organize" to a commonly understood standard of behavior.
Quoting Gnomon
I agree, feeling cannot be conceptualized. This is what leads me to believe it is a force. One that is understood by all the layers of the system creating us. Thus it is also attributable to all self organizing systems.
Thanks for having a look and providing some feedback. I have to work for the next few months, but after that hope to revise and expand it. I will check out your theory again and provide some comments. Is there a relevant thread open?
Hold-on now. You were on a reasonable path. So don't go off on an irrational tangent. :joke:
Quoting Pop
Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). The physical universe is indeed in the midst of a process of self-organization. It's like a computer program that runs on the system's inherent energy, and is guided by an operating system of rules for self-organization. In the terms of my thesis, the universal program is described as a process of En-Form-Action. But nothing in our real world experience is completely spontaneous, without precedent. Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. So, I question the conclusion to the quote above.
Recent theories of Cosmology have proposed that our universe did not begin with a "bang", but with a spontaneous (un-caused) Fluctuation in a pre-existing energy field. I assume that this was another attempt to avoid the inadvertent religious implications of the Big Bang as a creation event, requiring some kind of "external agent". Yes, in the real rational world, "spontaneous events" may appear out-of-nowhere, like an "immaculate conception", but logically & physically, there is always some necessary-but-unknown prior Cause -- perhaps an absentee baby-daddy, or maybe the Initial Link in the unbroken chain of causation that can be inferentially tracked back to a First Cause, or at least a Higher Context.
Whatever it is, the Prime Cause must provide "sufficient energy" for the evolutionary process of building a universe from scratch. And, in this constructive scenario, the random raw power of Cosmic Energy must also be ordered & channeled by logical laws of organization (natural laws), or else the result would be a destructive explosion that goes nowhere. What I'm saying here is that the hypothetical Original Cause, of apparently-spontaneous-organization, is necessarily an "external agent" combining explosive Power with teleological Direction (energy + order). Even Hawking's "No Boundary" theory was based on the hypothetical assumption of an eternal realm of unlimited Possibility : The Wave-Function. Yet even that unlimited Potential would contain nothing Actual, until it was triggered by some internal or external "Perturbation".
Therefore, a process without a beginning just doesn't make sense, logically or physically. And Hawking's retort to "what came before the Big Bang" was open-ended and ambiguous. From the perspective of his isolated (no context) mathematical model, he said, "it's like asking what's north of the North Pole". But in our real world, what's north of the North Pole, is a whole universe in the process of becoming. My thesis did not begin with the assumption of a particular First Cause. But as the concept of Creative Information evolved, it became obvious that some kind of Enformer was logically unavoidable. :cool:
Self-organization : Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Spontaneous : happening, especially in a living thing, without being caused by something outside, or without the organism's control
Perturbation : 2. a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence.
Agency : 2. action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.
The No-Boundary Universe : [i]"Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before."
“It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.”[/i]
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
NOTE : " encompasses the entire past, present and future at once" -- to me that sounds like an eternal world-creating deity. "A rose by any other name . . . ."
The Enformer :
* AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Yes I thought this would be a problem for you, but it may also be a solution. I find you have an intelligent conception of God, not an anthropocentric biblical God, but a creative force like element, and " self organization " is just such an element? :smile: God would have to self create? No. So god may have arose from self organization? :chin:
Quoting Gnomon
Again, If god self created, then he is not the causal element, self organization is. But might God be self organization? Its just a thought. :smile:
I am only beginning to understand self organization, but my first impression is that it is organization that causes a self.
Quoting Gnomon
Yeah, its all a bit unreliable to my mind. I tend to favor the infinite loop universe conception, but it is so far from where we are and so little reliable information to go on. So I'm blocking it out of consideration and starting from when the universe settled in on itself and started to self organize.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes I agree, as far as I can logically figure it, there has to be an external cause. "Nothing" is an incoherent concept. If it fluctuates its not nothing, and so the causal chain recedes ever further back.
Quoting Gnomon
Given the lack of certain information about the beginning, I'm inclined to start my narrative as the universe began to self organize. As order came into being it had all the hallmarks of consciousness - the cognition and bias ( emotional information ) to organize . It organized the energy into matter, and ever more complex permutations of information energy and matter ensue.
Creative information: Yes, but I think the creativity results from a bias ( emotional information ) towards order. The ordered state is a creation. The form of what is created is endlessly variable and open ended, but is always an expression of self organization.
Thanks for the links. I'm out of time today, but will check them out and give you some feedback tomorrow. Cheers :smile:
Self-organization, in the real world, is not a problem for me. We see it happen all around us. I once saw a time-lapse video -- to illustrate Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphogenesis -- of a seedling growing into a plant. The various elements of the plant somehow found their way to their final location as-if they knew where to go. Most scientists assumed the necessary "knowledge" was encoded in the DNA of the original seed. But Sheldrake postulated a Morphogenetic Field that guides each element to its correct place in the whole system. I don't think a literal external field is necessary though. That's because each element of the growing plant "communicates" with other elements via chemical signals (information). That exchange of self-organizing information is internal to the system, not an outside force.
The causal "creative force" of my thesis (EnFormAction) does indeed result in Self-Organization. But the S-O is an effect, not the cause. Likewise, the Enformer of our world is assumed to be eternal, hence self-existent, not self-organized. All of the scientific theories proposed to explain the contingent existence of our world, assume the prior existence of eternal Energy & Laws. And that's what EnFormAction is : the raw power to create, and the design criteria (blueprint ; program) necessary to guide the energy as it constructs a world of many forms. :smile:
Morphogenetic Field : https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/introduction
EnFormAction :
[i]* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Pop
I suspect that your definition of "Organization" might be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. EFA is the causal force in the world. It causes random matter to become ordered into organisms. So, EFA is the power to organize. :nerd:
Quoting Pop
Yes. Even Hawking's atheistic "No-Boundary" hypothesis of world creation assumes the eternal existence of Energy & Natural Laws (Organization or Information). Logically, those prerequisites must be external to the world system that began, either with a bang, or from a fluctuation. :chin:
Quoting Pop
Yes. I think what you call "Organization" is the same thing that I call "Information" or "EnFormAction". They all have a bias or inclination toward order rather than disorder. I like Plato's story of how our Cosmos (organized matter) emerged from primordial Chaos (unformed potential). We seem to be talking about the same concept, but using different terminology. :grin:
Chaos :
In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
I found your website well written and interesting, you have an easy to read style, and there was lots of good information. I found navigating the site a little awkward. There were lots of interesting snippets on the side of the pages that I would have liked to read more of, but couldn't easily navigate to. Have you thought about hyperlinking the texts on the side of the pages to the main document?
I find you have a broad understanding, and we make fairly similar observations, and as you state often its only the terminology that differs. Of course we are going to differ on the issue of God.
What I don't understand is why do you need to postulate a theory when you have a belief in God? It seems what you are saying is , hey look I understand all this stuff, but God still makes more sense? Would this be correct?
I feel when people speak of God, it is a little like speaking about art, in that it is a different thing in everybody's mind - it is a variable mental construct. Do you have a definition of God? The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. Every theory relies on some concept to tie off loose ends, and to unify the theory, and normally it is the fundamental element, and self organization dose this for me, whilst God dose it for you. :smile:
Yes the only alternative to a self organizing god is a self existent one, just as the only alternative to a big bang / beginning, is an infinite loop universe. :smile: It is amusing.
I am finding complexity theory quite helpful in making new connections. I have posted the below in another part of the forum. I wonder if you would mind scrutinizing it for me?
In accordance with complexity theory:
The qualia ( or quality ) of disparate elements, when combined, may form a synergy. The synergy is an emergent quality not found in any of the elements individually.. The form of the synergy is a random property, depending upon the qualities of the elements combined.
1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
4. the synergy of proteins combined forms cells: 100%
5. The synergy of cells combined forms organs: 100%
6. The synergy of organs combined forms bodies: 100%
7. The synergy of bodies combined forms families, communities, a nation, etc
Each layer of the system is caused by self organization, which is a "fundamental" universal quality, in a universe biased to self organize. Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization.
Each layer of the system is its own idiomatic milieu, where the problems of the milieu are cognized and resolved collectively.
Every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization. Many people can relate to this assertion intuitively in that consciousness is in some way self organization, but I mean it absolutely! :smile:
What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end.
Every level of an organism is organised for the purposes of the survival of that organism.
However, the concept of 'purpose' or 'telos' has forcefully rejected by modern evolutionary theory, on the grounds that it invokes a quality which cannot be quantified. Evolutionary biology simply assumes that the goal of any organism is to propogate or replicate. The question of why organisms seek to replicate is not considered, it is simply one of the givens of biology (a 'boundary condition' of the science, one might say.)
Quoting Gnomon
Sheldrake (whom I most admire) is a scientiific maverick whose views are almost universally rejected by mainstream science. John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine, famously titled his scornful review of Sheldrake's first book 'A Book for Burning', saying it should be scorned by scientists for the same reason Galileo was scorned by the Church - that it was heresy, and magical thinking.
Its difficult to relate to the idium of a cellular existence, but consider the synergy of a school of fish
But the fact of synergy is not self-explanatory, and neither is 'self-organisation'. What is lacking is precisely an explanatory principle. To say that that organisation exists on many levels - inorganic, organic, sentient - doesn't explain anything, it's just an observation.
It is self organization that exists, not just organization.
You need to reflect upon the fact and link it back to your own consciousness, via the assertion that every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization - absolutely!
Along these lines an understanding can form, in my opinion. It is the broad thrust of complexity theory, as I understand it.
Ha, there is a description of Prions in the awareness of molecules thread. My understanding is cancer evolves along a similar path. Things go wrong, and ultimately we die and disintegrate - no longer self organized. Our components become part of something else's self organization. Our genetic code however usually gets past on and remains immortal. :smile:
In the Enformationism thesis, side-notes are mostly quotes from the Bibliography listed under the "Information" tab.
In the BothAnd Blog, many sidebar notes have links at the bottom. Some also have pop-ups to longer notes. Just click on the "http:" URL at the end of the notes. More important links are indicated with an arrow, indicating that you can click on the note to see more on that topic. I also have a Glossary of special terminology with unique definitions as they apply to my personal thesis. :smile:
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
Quoting Pop
I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", which is always debatable. It's also not a matter of faith, but merely an unprovable Axiom for my thesis. Unfortunately, that Deist axiom is not accepted by Theists or Atheists. :naughty:
The God of the Philosophers :
Of course, their god is not a father in the sky they say, but rather the ground of being or fine-tuner of the universe or something even more esoteric. What my reader wondered was what such theoretical deities have to do with the beliefs of typical religious believers? In other words, how does a proof of an abstract god square with the god most of the faithful profess to believe? . . . . Little did my reader know that he has stumbled upon a problem that had baffled Christian thinkers from Pascal to Kierkegaard right up to the present time.
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/06/05/jb-sci-and-rel/
Axiom : (Math) a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
Quoting Pop
Since my thesis is primarily based on the cutting-edge concept of Information as the "substance" of both Mind & Matter, I followed that logic to conclude that a First Cause or Enformer was necessary for the thesis to make sense. Speaking of Logic, one of the philosophical terms I use to characterize my non-traditional notion of G*D is "LOGOS". According to Plato, it was the rational self-organizing force permeating the universe. But, he distinguished Logos from Mythos, which was his name for the anthro-morphic gods of the Greeks. :halo:
Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Energy is Information : Aristotle used the term “energeia” (action) to describe the primal force that imparted momentum (energy of motion) to the physical universe. And his action principle was borrowed by modern scientists as their label for what we now call “energy”, which is the power to cause change. But the Greek usage also implied that the aboriginal Actor (Logos) was sentient in some sense. However, that imputation of consciousness was omitted by the pragmatic scientists, who had no need for the idealistic aspect of the hypothesis. As a result, their mechanical definition of “Energy” as a “scalar physical quantity” contrasts with the phenomenal definition as an attribute of matter (the ability to do work) . That mysterious property (qualia) of matter turns out to be a metaphysical, mathematical abstraction for which they had no explanation other than it just is. Energy is never observed as a physical thing unto itself, apart from matter–-just like Information .
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page15.html
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
Quoting Pop
I don't normally define G*D as "self-organization", because I view Logos as the eternal power to organize, which was imparted to the temporal world in the Big Bang act of creation. Hence, the specific instances of self-organization we observe in the world are secondary to the universal power to create organized organisms. :nerd:
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 worshiped, but merely appreciated as the designer/organizer of the marvelous evolving system we know as 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
In Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory, phi (?) is a measure of the system's integrated information, its degree of wholeness. And "wholeness" is another name for Synergy, as in "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". On that basis, neuroscientist Christof Koch now equates Consciousness with Synergy. Going out on a professional limb, he says, "So consciousness is a property not only of brains, but of all matter". However, as usual, I prefer to save the term "consciousness" for the most highly-evolved forms of Generic Information. :nerd:
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes. I think Sheldrake was on the right track in his theory of Morphogenesis. But his presentation of the ideas sounds a lot like New Age mysticism. That's why I prefer to use the more prosaic terminology of Enformationism. Of course, for those not familiar with the cutting-edge physics that equates Information with both Mass and Energy, my own theory is often dismissed as Mysticism -- despite my assertion that no Magic is required beyond that of Quantum queerness. However, I can't deny that it is heretical to the outdated paradigm of Materialism. :cool:
Oh, you're at least as New Age as Sheldrake. In fact, you make him seem quite prosaic. :-)
Synergy does imply a direction, if not a specific goal, that a multi-part machine works toward. But it does not necessarily imply a self-conscious Purpose. For example, a thermostat is composed of several different components that, when working in cooperation, produce a specific result. But we can't say that the thermostat "wants" to keep warm. That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose?
The Bible implies that the reason for God to create intelligent creatures was to provide an egoistic deity with worshipers who are able to appreciate the power & benevolence of their creator. As long as those creatures are sufficiently pious, they will be rewarded with blessings & bounty of a "land flowing with milk and honey". But after a while, some of those creatures noticed that God's benevolence was also distributed to the impious and unjust. So, they concluded that their true reward would be postponed indefinitely until a new world was created only for the pious. But then, what was the point (purpose) of this present life full of pain & suffering?
Believers then revised their notion of the purpose of this imperfect world to that of a temporary device for sorting out the chosen people (saints) from the sinners. That still didn't make sense to me, so I came to doubt that the telos of our world was focused on slavish piety. Instead, the teleology of the evolving world seems to focused more on the process than on some unspecified future product. Hence, the purpose of each life is to Live a unique story. Beyond that, I can't say. I could, like Teilhard deChardin, speculate on some ultimate teleological Omega Point. But that would be an un-educated guess.
Therefore, although I see signs of Synergy & Teleology in the world, I can't predict how the story ends, whether in "fire or in ice". Instead, I can only exercise what little FreeWill I have, over my own Synergy & Teleology & Purpose. Then, the final outcome of zillions of free choices may add-up to something wonderful or awful. But, I don't expect to be around to appreciate it. Instead, I'll just try to enjoy the ride -- bumps and all. :cool:
Divine Justice :
Father which is in heaven: for he maketh. his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, ... his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and. sends rain on the just and the unjust.
___Matthew 5:45
Ecclesiastes :
1 To every thing there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven . . .
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” 22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?
PS___ Tononi's theory of Integrated Information, and its inherent Synergy or Holism, implies that its "cause--effect power is completely reducible to that of its parts", with no overriding divine purpose. But my thesis of Enformationism implies that there must be some Intention motivating such a cosmic creation. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to divine what that holistic function might be. So, I'll just have to take it on faith, that "all's well that end's well". :blush:
Quoting Wayfarer
Oh no! I'm not a New Ager, but a New Paradigmer. :yum:
According to complexity theory the result of the greater system ( the synergized self ) is a product of the local interaction of its component parts. There is a domino like causation occurring , and spreading wavelike across the synergized system, resulting in emergent behavior. The effect of "self organization" is inherently to create a self from elements entirely outside of self. So there is no need for external causation ( creator ) at all. The ungrounded decentralized self, still has to weave its way through the possibilities and constraints of its external environment whilst maintaining its integrity . This is difficult enough. It is purpose enough. It is an amazing achievement. It should be appreciated and valued. The life we have is a gift
At the same time, the self whilst possessing its own emergent internal self organized order, is entirely reacting to external circumstances. It is cognizing (via disturbance to its integrity) and reintegrating the disturbance via the bias to self organize. This last sentence describes the mechanism of consciousness as best I can resolve it. It applies to all layers of the cascade as previously described. The self is well characterized by a cyclone / hurricane.
This simple explanation puts a whole different light on things for me. I mistook G*D for "we mustn't speak his name", so this clouded my whole attitude. In going over your website I find your understanding broad and reasonable - very similar to my own. I could pick a few bones as you also have, but I don't see the point, we both know what we are doing.
As to whether our understanding is cutting edge though, I wonder. I tend to feel our understanding is still a little Newtonian and linear. I feel it is a complicated system we are describing, and a better understanding seems to be in reach from the complexity perspective.
Anyway - well done, and keep up the good work. :up:
The story currently doesn't have an ending. We create the story through self organization, where the story continually emerges.
Self organization fits beautifully as the cause of evolution where the main thrust is determined, but with a slight random element. This is not philosophical conjecture but observation of evolving systems like Covid19, which has a main thrust but slight variation to the left and right thus taking into account the probabilistic horizon it is venturing into. We do the same. There is a main thrust to humanity ( as a self organizing system ) with slight variation to the left and right - the synergy of this variability within the earths ecology is the story.
Does it have an ending? It looks to me we are, foot to the floor, heading toward a climatic and ecological cliff. It would not be a full stop ending of course, but there will be some very substantial rationalization heading into the future.
I think your concept of nature's ability to organize new systems from local interactions -- as the route to consciousness -- is on the right track. But I still maintain that the system we call Nature could not organize itself from nothing. And that talent for creating order from chaos is not an accident. It's what I call EnFormAction. Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self.
So, here are a couple of quibbles : a> when a sub-system becomes organized as a recognizable “Self” or “holon”, it displays new properties that were not manifest in the local cause. It's a new unique being, not just another isolated particle. That's the basic principle of Holism, and of Arthur Koestler's definition of “holons”, the “whole is more than the sum of its parts”. b> when a row of dominos is tipped over, there is a chain reaction of cause & effect. But, without an “external causation”, nothing happens. So, the need for a First Cause remains, to get the process of on-going organization started. The “falling dominos” are an internal effect of an external cause. And the "more than" is novel properties that were not in the local elements. What you are describing is Morphodynamics, but Life & Mind have properties that are not found in ordinary Energy or Matter.
Your image of a hurricane is apt, though. In his book, Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter, Terrence Deacon uses the apparently spontaneous formation of a whirlpool as an example of natural emergence and self-organization. However, "The disturbances from which the whirlpool emerges are external to it, whereas the dynamics of life are internal and also end-directed. Deacon calls this end-directedness "teleodynamics," which is different from “morphodynamics” (self-organizing or form-producing dynamics). An understanding of how he makes the incredible leap from morphodynamics (a primitive system) to teleodynamics (a complex, autopoietic system) requires reading the book. " https://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/27/terrence-deacon-and-the-nature-of-constraints :cool:
The Organizing Force : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Quoting Pop
Your description of the “cognizing” process is correct, as far as it goes. Yet again, it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. That output is not a physical product, but the ongoing process of Knowing. It's the "intelligent design" of the machine that imparts the Potential for actualization of Mind from Matter. Like Paley's Watch in a field, our experience with reality makes the spontaneous appearance of such a functional machine unlikely. (Note : Yes, it's the old Intelligent Design argument, which only works for a Deist-god, not a Bible-god)
In my own thesis of how Mind emerged from Matter, which emerged from who-knows-what, I initially tried to avoid the First Cause assumption. But the logic of the whole process of evolution always points back to an otherwise unexplainable beginning. Multiverse theories simply argue that it's turtles-all-the-way-down. But that's not an answer, it's infinite regress. The only plausible answer is Teleology. :nerd:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Yes they originate from the universal Bias to self organize, and from elements external to self. The self is caused initially, and then takes on a momentum of its own.
Quoting Gnomon
There is a mechanism to self organization that is equivalent to the mechanism of consciousness, as I see it. But its early days yet, and I'm still working on the details.
Turtles all the way. Yeah, I don't see a way around it. :smile:
But thanks for your input. :up:
Again, we are using different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress, which counteracts the disorganizing & destructive effects of Entropy, allowing such highly-organized phenomena as Life & Mind to emerge from the randomized mechanical procedures of Evolution. As described in mathematical terms, it's a ratio or relationship between two things. When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction.
Since highly-organized systems in nature seem to be rare and fleeting, Physicists at first didn't pay attention to the positive effects of innate Bias. Moreover, Energy seems to flow both ways. So, they first came up with a name for negative thermodynamic change : "Entropy". Only as an afterthought did they think to label the opposite of Entropy as "negentropy". But I think the more euphonic term "Enformy" better suits the positive aspects of natural evolutionary Bias.
Donald Watson defined Enformy simply as "the capacity to organize". And he viewed Consciousness as the current pinnacle of "enformed systems" in the world. Unfortunately, he seemed to assume that everything in the world is conscious to some degree. Which led him to include all sorts of New Age magic & mysticism in his theory. However, since I reserve the "consciousness" label for only the human sort of self-awareness, all other enformed systems are viewed as merely various forms of mundane Information, otherwise known as "Energy". :smile:
Bias : A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone.
Entropy : 2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Order & Complexity & Progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Theory of Enformed Systems : http://www.vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
That is also how I view Evolution. Many scientists emphasize the "random element" to conclude that it has no direction, no teleology. But Natural Selection seems to apply specific criteria to define fitness for each fork in the chain of causation. That specification is a result of what I call "EnFormAction", Pure randomness would have no direction or pattern. But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink:
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
:up: In complexity theory , the 1:1 situation is called an equilibrium state, whilst a 2: 1 is a far from equilibrium state. 1: 2 would be a disintegration.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes our constructions are similar for sure. How do you resolve the bias, or natural tendency or inclination towards order. As far as I can reason it, it is emotional information. The universe could have been an infinite number of different ways, but it chose just one way of being - a being towards order. At least in the local universe, and in local time. It suggests a bias, or inclination as you say, is also fundamental, or at least in the local vicinity it is fundamental. As a result we have this bias within us. It is how I understand emotions. They incline the system towards order. Have you thought about this?
Teleology is also used by complexity theory. Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . But the system forms a swarm for some reason, and that reason is the attractor. In space, gravity would be the attractor that elements find themselves captured by, and forced to self organize. It is a similar situation for a being finding themselves thrown into and captured by life and being forced to self organize, both mind and body - totally. This seems like a god starting point to me, for a narrative of what I think it is all about - a first person perspective.
Quoting Gnomon :up:
Quoting Gnomon
This is the correct view, but it requires careful expression. It seems frustratingly stupid to me, to think we can posses a singular quality nothing else in the universe possesses, although it is the prevalent dogma. We have a higher functioning form of consciousness, but everything possesses it to some degree. Finding the right way to express this is the trick. Biology focused on cellular complexity and quantum biology are making great strides in this direction.
The hard problem of consciousness is only hard from a dualists perspective, from a monists - its hard to see there is a problem! :cool:
Quoting Gnomon - an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy?
What about self destructive states of mind where pain and suffering is attributed the pleasureful condition/ target of achievement. For the sadist or masochist... this is the goal not the aversive state. It is possible the existence of a state of consciousness that wishes to not be conscious (ie wishes to be dead). A true definition or theory of consciousness bust account for suicide or suicidal ideation or at least self detriment
This is a form of pleasure for some people. It improves their climax!
Quoting Benj96
This too would be a function of self organization - it would be a way to resolve a currently perceived irresolvable situation - "I'd rather die then live with this". Living with this would be a life of miserable pain - within some belief systems. It is the miserable pain, and the perception that there is no resolution to it, which also has its own momentum, thus an anticipation of still worse misery that leads people to end it all. They decide they have had enough suffering, there is no hope of joy, and so they decide no feeling is preferable to a life of painful suffering.
The pain pleasure spectrum is personally constructed and quite convoluted - needing to accommodate the personal subjectivity ( belief system ) of individuals. What is pain to one person, can be a pleasure to another. Not only mentally but also physically, some people just don't feel much pain, whilst others feel the slightest.
I suspect that what you call "emotional information" is what I'm calling "intention". Repeated signs of intention (directional ; goal-oriented ; teleological) is what we call a "Trend" or "Tendency". In humans, an inclination toward some effect has an internal cause, which we call "Motivation" or "Emotion". In my thesis, I call the ultimate motivator, the Enformer : the source of both Momentum (inertial energy) and Direction (regulation, laws). Metaphorically, it's the Pool Shooter, who wants to put the eight-ball into the corner pocket. :joke:
Intention :
Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention
purpose or attitude toward the effect of one's actions or conduct:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intention
Quoting Pop
To say that the universe chose its "own way of being" implies that it is conscious and teleological : already a sentient being, who chooses a career. But, I see no evidence that the Temporal Universe As A Whole -- which contains sentient beings -- has reached the point of sentience.So again, I think the impetus that set this physical system on a certain path must have come from outside the system : from an eternal Multiverse, or an eternal Mind. Hence, the "way of being" of our world seems to have been set in the initial conditions (program) of the Big Bang. :nerd:
Quoting Pop
Again, I make a distinction between the highly-evolved Consciousness (information processing) of humans, and the simpler exchanges of energy (EnFormAction) at the lowest levels of the world system. This cosmic hierarchy is enformed by EnFormAction at all levels, but only the peak of the pyramid is fully self-conscious. Pure Information is Mathematical & Logical (1 : 2 & one is related to two as . . .), but in its "higher functioning form", the information is Mental : conceptual & self-referential. Hence, Information (energy + laws) seems to be the "singular quality" that everything in the universe possesses. :chin:
Quoting Pop
Yes. In Chaos Theory, a "strange attractor" seems to organize an otherwise random system into a relatively stable form, like a whirlpool in a calm pond. The proximate cause is not obvious within the random background. But the seeds of order (bias) are always lurking even within seeming chaos.
In his 2007 book, I Am A Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter claimed to have solved the Mind/Body problem by pointing to the Self-Reference & Recursion found in many dynamic systems. His conclusion was that he (his self, his soul) was a manifestation of a Strange Attractor, which spontaneously emerged from within the random collisions of particles in the physical system of the world.
Yet again, although a world-class genius, he was thinking inside the box. It's true that the seeds-of-self are innate in the world system of physics. But, like the old chicken & egg conundrum, it seems to result in an infinite regress, with no final solution. That's why I ask, "where did the seed of Life & Mind come from?". Even a seemingly self-creating Strange Attractor requires a system already programmed with the potential for new forms to arise from a patternless background. :wink:
Quine : A quine is a computer program which takes no input and produces a copy of its own source code as its only output. The standard terms for these programs in the computability theory and computer science literature are "self-replicating programs", "self-reproducing programs", and "self-copying programs". [ Note : the program still requires an external programmer ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)
Quoting Pop
That's why my thesis is a Monism : the single Universal Substance (Spinoza) is Generic Information, or EnFormAction (the power to create novel forms). Hence, the Mind/Body knot unravels after you realize that both Mind & Matter are constructs of Energy + Laws.
Information :
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Quoting Pop
Emotions are the motivating force of human behavior. But I don't know what would motivate a World Creator to devise an evolving system of Energy + Laws, that cause such things as Gravity and Humanity to emerge from the random swirling of atoms. :cool:
The way I understand it is that in a universe biased towards order, all of its component parts must also be biased towards order. As a monist, I then look to my own emotional bias, and can confirm I too am biased ( emotionally driven ) towards order, and then I try to see how this bias is expressed in less complicated systems.
Your understanding seems largely grounded in physics which blocks out the emotion and bias, and so cannot answer the why of cause, and so the body and all things non mind remain cartesian mechanisms. If a true monist understanding was applied to all things then an understanding that the universe was emotional would result. Such an understanding is desirable to me as I believe it would result in a better world, via a sense of universal relatedness.
In my view, your Enformer ( energy + information ) lacks the impetus provided by emotion. A philosophical Zombie has energy and information, but is inert without emotion. If your Enformer also possessed emotion, then with energy, information, and emotion would be equal to consciousness, which is equal to self organization. I have noticed that Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, so it seems there is some momentum in this direction.
As I see it, humanity is a complex system something like the school of fish pictured above. The fish in the middle of the school are the safest, they are in a good spot and will not cause the school to move. Its the fish on the edge that can cause movement. They are in the riskiest position, but perhaps their movement might just cause the whole school to follow. Its the reward for being on the edge, they might just lead for a moment. The same dynamic exists in art and philosophy, in my view.
We cant see the beginning, there is not enough information. What we can observe though, is that the attractor is itself the program ( self organization ), in my opinion.
Everything is made from three self organizing things - electrons, neutrons, and protons.
FWIW, here's a quote from my blog post explaining the neologism of "EnFormAction".
Attractor :
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”.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LW5JAS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Deacon sees opportunities for unification by reintegrating “absence-based causality into science”
Note : Deacon's "Absence" is similar to Aristotle's "Potential".
Very much like self organization. Just needs a tiny bit of emotion to give it impetus :razz:
Ironically, the world model of Physics seems to be primarily biased toward disorder (entropy), so like an explosion of fireworks, it's all downhill after the Big Bang. However, physics also has discovered pockets of order within this dying cosmos, such as galaxies & stars & solar systems. And within our own local system, as far as we know, only Earth has fostered the emergence of Life & Mind. But physics has no good explanation for how or why those small pockets of negentropy could emerge, if the universe is a one-way street to "heat death". So, it's not physically true that "all parts are biased towards order".
In my thesis though, I have proposed a natural phenomenon that reverses that trend toward disorder, allowing Life & Mind & Culture to emerge from the random roiling of atoms. I call that bias toward order, "Enformy". It causes order within a context of disorder. It allows Life to arise from non-living matter. And it facilitated the emergence of Mind from mindless matter. Matter is indeed a form of Information, but only minds are conscious. Information (like energy) can be both positive and negative. But Life & Mind & Awareness are positive results of a mostly negative trend toward a cold dark end. Therefore, Consciousness seems to be the exception rather than the rule in our Universe. :chin:
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, [or bias] that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
Quoting Pop
Yes. My worldview is indeed based on discoveries of Science, and especially Physics, that indicate the ubiquitous workings of Information (EnFormAction) in the world. But my thesis followed the physical evidence back to a metaphysical explanation for Life & Mind & Emotion & Bias.
But physics gives us no information about the Prime Mover that lit the fire leading to human Emotions. So I don't pretend to know what motivated the original Enformer to create an imperfect world that was already dying from the word "go". Unlike most Theists, I don't attribute human emotions to the abstract First Cause. Yet, logically that Source of all things must have possessed the Potential for such messy motivators as fear, love, hate, happiness, sadness, disgust & anger. Those are all variations on a single dichotomy : Positive vs Negative. Which are also the fundamental elements of Generic Information : (1 / 0), (+ / -), (yes / no), (hot / cold), etc. So, there must have been some "Why", some "Purpose" that broke the static symmetry of equally balanced possibilities, to allow a bias toward Order & Life & Mind & yes . . . emotions. :cool:
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting Pop
If my Enformer possessed human-like emotions, S/he would have to also possess a humanoid body -- the generator of visceral feelings -- like most of the god-models of human civilizations. But, since I have no revelation from G*D, I can't say with any authority what G*D is like. That's why I assume that G*D has no Actual attributes, but only infinite Potential for all possible qualities. :smile:
S/he : a contraction of the gender pronouns to indicate that G*D is neither male nor female, but has the potential for creating both male & female beings, with positive & negative bodies (i.e. innies & outies).
Donald Hoffman : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
There is so much focus on the second law of thermodynamics, when natural systems are open / dissipative systems. The second law of thermodynamics fails in the case of a rectangular closed environment, disorder levels of and no longer increases - Heat death would not occur!
Quoting Gnomon
I did say in the local universe in local time, but yes you have a point if the universe is a closed system, and If it falls to equilibrium, which it is not going to do any time soon. :yikes:
Quoting Gnomon
:up: Its a hard thing to say, and we say it for slightly different reasons, but it seems logical and true.
In what sense are those particles "self-organizing"? Don't they require pre-existing natural laws and energy to organize Potential Matter into specific measurable arrangements (patterns) of energy & mass? The currently accepted theory of matter says that invisible formless fields, not particles, are fundamental. The emergent particles are imagined as Virtual Particles that exist only in statistical Potential until some mysterious perturbation goads them into physical Actual existence. Before that actualization event they exist only as unreal in-commensurable mathematical probabilities in an algebraic equation. Anyway, those ghostly virtual particles don't voluntarily self-organize into real physical particles. Instead, they only jump like a frog when poked with a stick. :joke:
Virtual Particles : We often hear the word ‘virtual particle’ in physics and pop-sci explanations of quantum field theory. But, in reality, there are no such things as virtual particles. Today we will explore why (and how) virtual particles are needed, and also why they don’t exist.
https://medium.com/einsteins-cup-of-tea/virtual-particles-do-not-exist-ce82de3c1627
Then that would be an exception to the rule. In fact, even your example would require Maxwell's imaginary "demon" -- a spiritual entity -- to sort-out hot from cold particles. The Thermodynamic Law still prevails, until magic is used to overcome physics. :joke:
Maxwell's Demon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Quoting Pop
The Law of Thermodynamics assumes, as an axiom, that our universe is a closed system, with no divine (or demonic) interventions. But, scientists still admit that the world is open-ended at both ends : a> in the Big Bang, inputs of laws & energy ; b> at the Final Freeze, the heat death of the whole system. Admittedly, some physicists conjecture that some of the energy & laws could leak-out of the system via Black Hole tunnels into the infinite world outside our little verse. But, they are still searching for evidence --- along with persistent UFO believers. :yum:
Quoting Pop
Yes. The human mind understands the world in terms of logic & meaning. Logic implies a chain of cause & effect, but what was the First Cause? And meaning implies Purpose, but whose teleological intention could be invoked to explain the temporary existence of our running-down world, with pockets of anti-themodynamic Enformy? Whether my thesis is True or not, is too soon to say. :nerd:
Cosmic Progression Path : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Yes that is true, but like "the beginning" one needs to find firm footing. At least atoms are not in dispute / theoretical. Unlike string theory, which seems headed for the can.
Quoting Gnomon
What about the black holes? What is dark matter and energy? How would things change if we understood the other 85%??
Quoting Gnomon
I like it. It seems the rate of change is ever increasing. But in complexity theory the curve progresses and then suddenly collapses, like the Bronze Age , Roman empire, etc.
Originally, Black Holes were assumed to permanently remove Information (energy + matter) from circulation in the universe. Now, some physicists speculate that black holes may be tunnels from our known universe out into the speculative Multiverse. Until they find some evidence to support that possibility, I won't attempt to fit those Information Leaks into my Enformationism thesis.
Black hole information paradox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Likewise with Dark Matter, which is postulated to be composed of Non-Baryonic matter. Like the mythical Unicorn, I won't include such stuff into my worldview, until a real specimen has been captured and examined, to see if the horn is glued on. Like all forms of EnFormAction and Energy, we only know of its existence by inferring from its effects on the material world. What it actually is (consists of), remains unknown. Gravity is no longer assumed to be a pulling Force, but merely the geometric shape (form) of empty enformed space. So, maybe "Dark Matter" is also immaterial, and merely an aberration in the geometry of space. By that, I mean, it's an unknown form of Information/EnFormAction/Energy.
Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I have my own speculation about the Dark Energy that is supposedly causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. I don't know enough about the inertia from the Big Bang that is propelling all matter away from the original pinpoint Singularity. But, if the energy of Inertia is affected by "friction", I'm guessing that the speed of expansion would increase as the mutual gravitational pull of galaxies diminished as the square of the increasing distance. The result might appear to be due to added energy, but could instead be due to subtraction of gravitational "drag". :nerd:
Newtonian Inertia Law Number One: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
https://insights.ltadvisors.com/blog/the-big-bang-theory-meets-sap-the-physics-of-erp-selection
But, what if the "external force" (gravity) is diminished due to increasing distance? Would the mass of the universe fly apart even faster? If so, as the drag of mutual gravity lessens, the inertial energy of expansion might increase, causing the original motion to speed up.
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity.
Complexity Theory applies to isolated chaotic systems, which have a limited lifespan. But the Cosmos seems to be gradually organizing itself (self-organization) despite the pull (bias) of Entropy back into a chaotic state.
So, the lifespan of the organic universe may be limited only by the supply of Energy/Information that remains in circulation, after eons of Entropy have wasted it away. However, notice that, in the Cosmic Progression Graph, the curve remains Asymptotic to the vertical line defining the complete exhaustion of Energy/Information. Hence, the lifespan of the physical universe is finite, and will never cross the finish line at Infinity. :worry:
Asymptote : a line that a curve approaches, but never touches, as it heads towards infinity
PS__A more optimistic (imaginative) version of the graph could show a new curve springing off from the Omega Point. That would be a new universe, and a new world, powered by the recycled Enformation/Energy from the original cycle of world creation. But that fantasy is so far-out, that my puny mind can't make sense of how it would work. Unless of course, the Programmer chooses to plug the data from the first calculation into a new program, for another pass at achieving perfection. Objection, your honor! Pure speculation! :yikes:
There are quite a few objectors to the heat death hypothesis:
From Wikipedia:
"
Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[27][28] More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[29] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[30] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[31] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[32] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[33] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[34]
A 2010 analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[35] Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[36] This point of view is also supported by the fact of a recent experimental discovery of a stable non-equilibrium steady state in a relatively simple closed system. It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.[37][38]"
A think it is fair enough to say that the universe is biased towars order. It is true at least for the local observed universe, in local time. This is the relevent consideration. Things may have been different in the past, and may be different in the future, but currently and locally there is a bias towards order.
Quoting Gnomon - I like this very much.
We cannot conceptualize emotions we can only feel them. :100:
We cannot conceptualize energy, we can only feel it. 80% - any thoughts?
Therefore emotion is a form of energy / enformation ?? - a force?
You noticed a seed that has fallen onto the ground. You notice it begins to take root. You later notice another plant begins to grow where said seed has fallen.
Etc. Though, many animals exhibit this form of consciousness as well. An animal learns it can either get food by cracking open nuts, or that if you witness a fellow member of your species being killed or injured by something, if you don't react (fight or flight) it can happen to you, or some even say something along the lines of a squirrel storing nuts for the winter or a bear gathering up on fat for hibernation, though it is commonly argued the latter are more habitual/instinctual (genetic memory?) than conscious willpower. Who knows?
You need to be aware of a before state to be aware of a present state, and both are required to have any notion of a future state, which is where planning/decisions derive from, which is probably where invention and innovation comes from ie. you notice two objects that seem unrelated to each other say a fallen tree branch and a heavy object, than perhaps put two and two together, then you have a lever. But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans? A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand?
Time is an important element. Far from equilibrium states store energy for a future time.So they are cognizant of time from the word GO! The self organizing system is entirely attuned to its environment, and evolves within the environments constraints and possibilities, in a relational fashion, through its interaction with it.
The system is entirely determined / caused, with a slight randomness attached to each causal transaction, such that emergent properties arise from the randomness acting upon a multiplicity of causal factors. Eventually the system evolves in this way already aware and interacting with its environment, "as this is the only way that it has to develop", into humanity.
Cosmologists, looking at the universe as a whole system, conclude that it began in a hot & dense state, and is inexorably moving toward a cold & diffuse state. A rather dismal outlook. But, on a brighter note, they also observe that there is at least one pocket of organization that is like Goldilock's porridge : "just right" for Life & Mind. Our little planet happens to be in the habitable zone of not too hot & not too cold. To them, that rare coincidence looks like a random accident. So, even those, who are looking for habitable planets outside our solar system, would conclude that the universe as-a-whole is biased toward disorder. And that conclusion confirms their disbelief in a benevolent intelligent creator.
But I take a different angle on the Design-versus-Accident question. In my theory of Intelligent Evolution, I postulate that our world was not designed from the top-down, as in Genesis. Instead, it is designing itself (self-organizing) from the bottom-up via Evolutionary Programming. The metamorphosis program relies on randomness (accidents) to scramble existing forms, thereby allowing novel patterns to emerge -- not by accident, but by intention. Those viable emergent forms then compete among themselves to gain merit (fitness) with the Programmer, who established the criteria for passing-on to the next generation. Therefore, the universe is generally chaotic, but contains a seed of EnFormAction, which is indeed biased toward order. :smile:
Intelligent Evolution :
The Enformationism world-view and the BothAnd philosophy are based on a composite personal under-standing of how the world works. It’s a blend of both empirical scientific facts and theoretical religious myths. It accepts the general concept of natural evolution, but offers a detailed hypothesis to explain how that cause & effect process began from a primordial act of causation. The thesis developed from that kernel will seem un-scientific to some, and blasphemous to others. But it’s intended to be a reasonable theory derived from commonly accepted facts, plus a few notions from the cutting-edge of 21st century knowledge.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html
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
Yes. Human emotions are hormonal effects that produce the feelings we crudely categorize as happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, surprise, and anger. But, in various contexts, those basic feelings interact to form more complex sensations that also have names, but are still too complex to define succinctly in words.
Those hormones & neurotransmitters are chemical causes of neural changes that result in outward bodily behaviors. So, in that sense, they are motivating forms of physical Energy. And physical Energy is one form of what I call Generic Information or EnFormAction : the power to cause changes in form. Another type of Generic Information is the non-physical Vital Force that ancient sages observed in living organisms, but modern science has not pinned-down to a particular physical substance. Ironically, the ordinary Energy, that physicists take for granted, is also an invisible, intangible, immaterial causal force. And it's obvious that one of its many forms is the visceral motivations that we call Emotions. :joke:
You're almost there but I think Damasio is more successful describing emotions and feelings (they re not the same thing).
Quoting Gnomon
Ufff... here you lost me.
Quoting Gnomon
Lost again, your theory of consciousness is too long to digest but I'm curious on what you think about the Phi of Tononi and his IIT. Thanks.
Yes. Human consciousness has always been assumed to be awareness of the immediate present. But recent studies have shown that our awareness is always a beat behind the actual event. Part of that delay is the split-second it takes for processing of incoming information. But another part seems to be due to the necessity to compare the new information with memory, in order to assign it to a meaningful category of our worldview -- to make sense of it. So, our Present is always in the recent Past, and our projections into the future are mostly extrapolations from memory. :smile:
Quoting Outlander
I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that human consciousness is significantly different from animal consciousness, or even from that of single-cell organisms. So it seem to be just a higher degree of general awareness (integrated information) of the internal milieu & external environment. Some have proposed that a moral conscience is added to animal consciousness along with the human soul. But almost all animated creatures appear to have some degree of social awareness & altruism. Yet, only humans seem to generalize that Me & You concept into abstract symbols & shareable words & viral memes. :nerd:
:up: That fits with my view of Determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergent properties into its progress, met by natural selection culling unviable variants, thus causing better ordered states. This big picture seems to be a form of self organization. The big picture seems to be a teleological one, creating layers of smaller pictures subsuming the same form, as it is the only game in town! So its only possible to progress towards order. Human consciousness sits on top of this pile, but is not separate to it. Indeed it is entirely a teleological / self ordering mechanism, whose purpose is to self organize the entire system in relation to external elements / information. There is no possibility to step outside of this function in ordinary states of consciousness, because the very nature of a thought is a self organizing mechanism.
So the top down causation seems to be a big bucket where self order is the only possibility, with gradual layers of smaller buckets subsuming the same form all the way down to Planck length. Though it might be easier to understand as a bottom up causation.
Quoting Gnomon
YES! :up: It is obvious to me also, unfortunately not so for everybody. I think this is our ontological base - experience, that is a feeling, that is painful or pleasurable, that creates the "what it feels like" to be in the present moment. This is the thing that we have always trusted, and must trust, as it is the basis of our self organization, which is the basis of our personal reality, and everything that matters to us. And it seems it is a force emanating from a universe biased toward order.
At certain times of the universe there are certain forces at play, and this is what we are fundamentally grounded in - at the moment, in local time, it is the force toward order, which we arise out of, which we feel as emotions, that grounds us in the universe.
EnFormAction : I can see your mind ticking as it grapples with the logic of it all. I can certainly relate to that. :smile:
In consciousness, it is emotion that gives rise to the energy that enables action. The emotion is itself information, so if Enformation also contains emotion, then I can agree with it. EnFormAction is the result.
The mechanism described would be the integrative pole of consciousness, whilst perception would be the disintegrative pole (the disordering of the state).
Cartesianism excludes the "force of emotion" from all things non mind. So there is no answer to the hard problem from that paradigm. To shift the paradigm, and answer the hard problem, emotion has to become a force, or the universe has to become emotional. The effect is the same. Its a big job! :lol:
Thanks for the "pocket of order". I agree, to say it is a universe biased toward order is overreach. It needs rephrasing.
Yes. I was not trying to provide a complete analysis of the difference between visceral Emotions and mental Feelings. :smile:
Feeling our Emotions : For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings was the purview of philosophers. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/
Quoting Raul
I was making an obscure reference to Damasio's distinction between physical Emotions and metaphysical Feelings, as abbreviated in the previous post. :nerd:
Quoting Raul
Sorry. My Enformationism Thesis proposes a new paradigm of empirical physical Science & theoretical metaphysical Philosophy. So, it uses a lot of neologisms that combine some modern reductive materialistic concepts with ancient holistic incorporeal notions. You'd have to be really motivated to expend the mental energy to completely comprehend that novel worldview. In this forum, I'm only giving glimpses of that strange new world. The concept of Integrated Information is a highly technical version of the old idea of Holism : that a whole integrated system (such as a human brain) has new properties/qualities (self-consciousness) that are not evident in its component parts (neurons). :cool:
Universal Consciousness :
[i]* Because the problem of consciousness is a problem of definitions, some neuroscientists have decided to stick their necks out and define it. A popular recent definition is contained in integrated information theory, proposed by Guilio Tononi and Cristoph Koch. An apparent consequence of their definition is that pretty much anything can be conscious if it has the right sort of "information integratedness". A philosopher named Eric Schwitzgebel ran with this line of thinking, and attempted to show that If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious.
* To their credit, Tononi and Koch seem to have bitten the bullet and accepted a form of panpsychism — the idea that everything is conscious. Some philosophers dislike it when definitions are too broad : they call the process "bloating". But, it's a useful concept in my opinion. If everything from electrons to galaxies is somewhat conscious (by virtue of being somewhere on the "information integratedness" scale) then the concept of Consciousness becomes less useful as a descriptor of observable phenomena. (But then again, perhaps we never actually observe consciousness anyway. We observe with consciousness. Consciousness itself seems to have no material attributes: it is only the objects or targets of consciousness that have attributes. )[/i]
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html
Generic Information :
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
Note -- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
They may originate as feelings of hunger or thirst, or as emotions due to cognitive process, but they resolve to feelings that are either painful or pleasant, that provide the felt sensation that becomes a causal force. - the question is why should that happen? and I think the answer is that it facilitates self organization.** Why? - because living systems can do nothing other then self organize. Everything they do is within the framework of self organization, punctuated by a feeling of "what it feels like" in the present moment.
Spontaneous self-organization as spontaneous decrease of entropy ? I'm not sure "self-organization" is an exhaustive enough word. I like Damasio's argument much more that says the purpose of emotions is to maintain homeostasis, survival.
:up:
Quoting Gnomon
Why metaphysical feelings? What does a feeling be metaphysical? I personally would not attribute to feelings to be metaphysical but I would try to understand them better. I think any meta-something is for me a form of dualism, laziness to understand things, that I do not accept as a valid epistemic argument.
I know the implications of my claim, basically this claim destroys an important part of continental philosophy but it is what it is, this is how I see it.
I see that this implies as well that I do not agree with your Enformationism because as you say it contains metaphysical aspects. So I don't think it is worth I invest a lot of energy in understanding it in depth.
Quoting Gnomon
Searle says that as well. I disagree, I do not understand IIT as a form of panpsychism but I understand why many people think this way. IIT measures a foundational property of consciousness, it implies consciousness being a measurable attribute of any physical system like, for example, temperature. But accepting this implies accepting a different concept of consciousness, with completely different connotations. It does mean that IIT consciousness does not always contain a psyque and this implies we have to start talking about types of consciousness, like mammifere's or human's consciousness (types of consciousness that do contain a psyche because of emotions, feelings, social behaviours, etc.). I personally like IIT this very much because it has many practical consequences like that we can measure if a patient in lock-in syndrome is conscious or not looking at its IIT Phi coefficient, what is amazing!
Quoting Gnomon
Right, it is like the liquidity of water or any other substance. It is an attribute of the systems but the consciousness coefficient, IIT Phi, has to be beyond certain thresholds for human-like consciousness to arise. Below that threshold the consciousness is more and more "solid"... it cannot contain a psyche because it is not complex enough. I mean low conscious Phi means that consciousness is not the way we see it in living matter or mamifers but just a low level of integrated information we very low potential to develop even any kind of intelligent behaviour. Low-Phi's can be for example systems of particles that (i.e., molecules) interact between them but following physical laws and without "willingness", etc...
Quoting Gnomon
I read you Enformation concept in your link. It is amazing your effort of putting all this together and I envy you capacity to do it.
I'll be honest and sorry if I'm maybe too sharp but is a risk we all run when we expose our ideas.
Yes, we like unifying theories, einstein dreamed about a unified theory of the universe and you try to unify dualism and monism, but your Enformation is descriptive of things is not even a theory. What is the novelty and the implications of your Enformation? I can create my own concept as well, religions create their own systems of believes, Heidegger created his own concepts as well but what are the implications? Sounds like intellectual massage, a potpourri. Where is the epistemic value. Aren't you hiding all the important questions again behind a G*D. You can call it God or G*D or Dieu or Dios, it is always the same dualist story.
Let me put it differently, is your Enformation or your theory of consciousness able to do any kind of prediction? Like general relativity does or like quantum mechanics does? I mean a kind of "test" to proof your theory is adding epistemic value. I think the answer is not, this is why I say it is just descrptive.
Net, it is always attractive aesthetically to link up our intuitions (intuitions are more or less the same since our brain is like it is, from Plato and before him, only scientific discoveries create novelty) with new scientific concepts but I think what is important is to stop calling science "materialist" or "reductive" and put things the other way around: science is what is augmenting (not reducing) the concepts of nature like matter, energy, space, time.
By the way, in your Enformation concept I think you're missing implications of quantistic theories to our naif-intuitions on time and space, cause-effect,... once you understand some of quantum theories you start grasping that God, the initial cause, is maybe not needed if time is relative to the properties of our universe based on a mix of astronomic constants or maybe it was God to set them up? :-)
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/some-useful-constants-for-astronomy/
Spontaneous would not be logical. Initially they are caused. The fundamental cause would be the ordered state of the universe. They could not occur in disordered pockets.
Damasio's argument is not at odds with my understanding, my preferred wording is "far from equilibrium", rather then homeostasis. Far from equilibrium implies homeostasis, but also far in excess of homeostasis.
Organisms live at far-from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. They import exergy, export entropy and maintain constancy of their vital internal physiological constituents via homeostasis.
Perhaps you interpret "metaphysics" as the study of unreality, or of the supernatural. But that's not what I'm saying.
I have a unique definition of Meta-Physics that was derived from Aristotle's second volume of his Physics, and is tailored to fit my personal worldview of Enformationism. Basically, the natural, but immaterial, phenomenon that we call "Mind" or "Consciousness", is what I call Meta-Physics : the non-physical aspect of our world. Another term for this category is "Subjective Reality" Since we can't study the Mind empirically, we must investigate it philosophically. :smile:
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
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.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Physics and metaphysics :
Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology. Physics as he understood it was equivalent to what would now be called “natural philosophy,” or the study of nature (physis); in this sense it encompasses not only the modern field of physics but also biology, chemistry, geology, psychology, and even meteorology. Metaphysics, however, is notably absent from Aristotle’s classification; indeed, he never uses the word, which first appears in the posthumous catalog of his writings as a name for the works listed after the Physics. He does, however, recognize the branch of philosophy now called metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics
Science and metaphysics must work together :
https://aeon.co/essays/science-and-metaphysics-must-work-together-to-answer-lifes-deepest-questions
Even Christof Koch, a major proponent of IIT, refers to it as a modern form of Panpsychism. I understand why they use that common-but-outdated term. Yet, I think it has been misused by New Agers to imply all sorts of spooky notions. So, my own version of an all-mind world would be "PanEnformationism". Information is universal, but Consciousness & Subjectivity are limited to a few brainy animals at the top of the food chain.
Unlike PP, PE doesn't imply that everything in the world has a spiritual or mental or magical aspect. Instead, Enformationism is all natural, no magical. It explains how subjective Minds, and other Meta-Physical aspects of the world could arise from a kernel of EnFormAction (creative energy) in the Big Bang, by means of Darwinian evolution, and with no supernatural intervention beyond that initial setup. :cool:
Panspiritualism : Enformationism vs Panpsychism
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html
Enformationism is merely my coinage for the cutting-edge concept in Physics & Cosmology, that everything in the world is a form of Information : Energy, Matter & Mind. The novelty that I have added is to make it a topic for study in Philosophy, specifically in Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
The Cosmic implications of Enformationism are what I am exploring in my blog and in these Forum posts. Perhaps the primary significance of that novel worldview is as a replacement for the ancient outdated paradigms of Materialism and Spiritualism. Modern Science has weakened the hold of Spiritualism on the mind of the masses. And Quantum Theory has undermined the once-solid foundation of Materialism, with amorphous Fields and Virtual particles. But Enformationism is a way to put the Meta-Physical puzzle back together again.
Hey, it works for me. But, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for the next momentous Paradigm Shift, that was prophesied by New Age heralds, and fringey physicists steeped in Eastern philosophy. For me, it's just a personal worldview. :yum:
Everything is Information : Physicist John Wheeler coined the term black hole. ... Wheeler said the universe had three parts: First, “Everything is Particles,” second, “Everything is Fields,” and third, “Everything is information"
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information
While you're right, I consider metaphysics unreal :-) , it is not that I think it studies unreality, it is just that it is counter productive to use the term metaphysics as it implies a reality beyond physics, it connotates a dualism view of the world.
Metaphysics and meta-smthg terms are feeding what I think is a false intuition that is, as you mention, that mind cannot be studied empirically. I think heterophenomenology works and studying subjectivity empirically with the help of neuroscientific techniques and technologies is not only possible, it is what we do since a long time (not only Dennett but contemporary psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience do it).
Another story is us accepting that We, our Self, is not within our brain and its biology. I claim we should stop using the term mind as I think it is as well misleading and we should extend, instead, the use of the word brain and its relationship with the world (as Georg Northoff claims as well and as weìre doing with the concept of information).
Looks like Aristotle never used the word "metaphysics" and the etymology of the word itself is full of misunderstandings. Since then, and fed by dualistic intuitions as well as the fact that physics and science as we know it today was not very powerful and extended in the past 2 millenials, this concept got "viral" and each philosopher has tried to build its own metaphysics, trying to justify the existence of a kind of discipline superior to science. This "supremacy" of metaphysics is for me just sterile epistemologically.
I don't think you will grasp the fundamental revolution of nowadays understanding of our brain if you keep saying that there is any kind of physics vs metaphysics like being 2 sides of the same coin.
Quoting Gnomon
I think the mental flip is needed to stop talking metaphysics.
Quoting Gnomon
Yeap, I do as well, and I personally don't like they use it. If you read their work I think using the word panpsychism induces to confusion.
Quoting Gnomon
This is interesting, so for you the mind is inside nature?, then you're and maybe you don't know :smirk: , a natural cognitivist as I do (Sandro Nannini, Daniel Andler, etc.)
Quoting Gnomon
Ufff, here I think you've gone too far. Everything? Are you sure you're not repeating philosophical mistakes history shows we use to do? basically that we exaggerate and extrapolate too much concepts created by the contemporary discoveries?
I agree the concept of information has become very powerful and I agree it helps articulate better how the world works. It has become such a powerful term because we all are experiencing a reality full of information technologies but saying that energy, matter and mind are a form of information I think is wrong.
Forgetting about mind, that is misplaced here as it is a different category, energy and matter can be in a chaotic, uncertain state with high entropic so containing low amounts of information. I think information's ontology has to be understood as a property and/or attribute of a certain state of energy/matter. More similar to "temperature" for example, you can measure temperature of any system so the same way you can measure the level of certainty, the amount of "information" it has.
Quoting Gnomon
Right, and I really appreciate your view, it is estimulating to exchange ideas here :wink: :up:
I invite you to listen some of these videos, and you will feel how the concept of mind and metaphysics will little by little dissolve:
http://www.georgnorthoff.com/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dehaene+perception
What "missing implications" are you referring to? What do those cosmic constants have to do with the First Cause inference? In my thesis, I merely assume that all constants were established in the Initial Conditions encoded in the Big Bang Singularity. They may seem arbitrary to physicists, but as Einstein discovered in his "biggest blunder", those seemingly random numbers do play a significant role in defining the particular path that evolution takes. Just as the random numbers of PI are essential to the creation of perfect circles, random constants my be essential to the creation of a "perfect" world --- from the Programmer's perspective, not necessarily from yours or mine.
Are you implying that Einstein's Theory of Relativity implies that our Earth-time perspective is not absolute, because the constants are calculated based on Earth's frame of reference? Actually, most of the 26 constants were intentionally adjusted to be local-time independent, by using the absolute speed limit of light as the common denominator. So, either those constants were arbitrary & accidental, in which case the precise organization of nature is an astronomical coincidence, or they were "set up" by G*D, because they were necessary to guide the computation of evolution in the intended direction. The latter makes more sense to me. :nerd:
Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' : https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html
Time-variation of fundamental constants : The term physical constant expresses the notion of a physical quantity subject to experimental measurement which is independent of the time or location of the experiment. . . . The immutability of these fundamental constants is an important cornerstone of the laws of physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants
Synchronicity : astronomical coincidence?
Actually, the notion of "Meta-Physics" in the Enformationism thesis was specifically intended to fit into a monistic view of the world. Notice all the "&" conjunctions in the definition below. The ultimate unity of all dualisms is what I call The BothAnd Principle. It connotes a Holistic view of the world, as symbolized in the Yin/Yang concept. Personally, I think that my definition of Meta-Physics should be productive for reconciling the dueling dualities (metaphysical memes) that are dividing our polarized world. :cool:
Monism : a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world. . . . the doctrine that only one supreme being exists.
NOTE : The worldview of PanEnDeism says that G*D is immanent in the world, but not limited to this physical sphere of space-time. Hence, G*D is BothAnd.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind & matter, substance & attribute, fact & value.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
The BothAnd Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
PS___The "unreality" I referred to was the view from the standpoint of Materialism. But what I call "Ideality" is merely the viewpoint of a world with immaterial conscious Minds.
Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
I see, you work on your intuitions that tell you that a G*D is needed and I understand you're not a scientist, right? basically you have put together a good movie.
Ok, so this just confirms what I said, Your theory is a potpourri of ideas very descriptive of your own pop-movie.
No epistemic value, no consequences or implications for anything. I'm sorry Gnomon, I'm being intellectually honest, don't get too attached to this theory. Try to get new sources and new perspectives, not trying just to be right in what you say but listening to the novelties, the epistemic progress.
Contemporary times are great for this, you never get bored :nerd:
No. The Enformationism thesis is not a Scientific Theory; it's a Philosophical Thesis. On the other hand, it is a sort of Theory of Everything, which retro-dicts that, given an intentional First Cause, the evolution of the world would be essentially just as scientists have found it to be, via their empirical investigations.
However, it also implies that if the "tape" of evolution was rewound and run again, the current state of the world would be somewhat different. That's because the linear Determinism of the evolutionary program is scrambled by the element of Randomness. That's why I don't attempt to make long-term predictions about the future of our incredibly complex world, driven by the heuristic method of Evolution.
My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke:
Retro-dict : to state a fact about the past based on inference or deduction, rather than evidence.
Replay the Tape : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_life_theory
Heuristic :
[i]1. any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational.
2. In mathematical optimization and computer science, heuristic is a trial & error technique designed for solving a problem more quickly when classic methods are too slow.[/i]
Epistemic : cognitive, conscious, knowing, cerebral, inner, intellectual, interior, internal, mental, psychological, noetic
Many years ago, I lost faith in the Bible. But I still couldn't dispense with the logical necessity for what I later learned was the philosophical First Cause. Since then, all I've learned about Science and Philosophy has confirmed that early intuition.
I am not a scientist, and don't pretend to be. And the Enformationism thesis is not a fictional movie, it's my personal factual worldview. If you don't like it, you are welcome to create one of your own. :cool:
Thanks for offering your "honest" opinion of my personal worldview. But, if you were interested enough to actually read the Enformationism thesis, you would find that it is anything but a "potpouri" of random ideas. Instead it is a carefully reasoned step-by-step hypothesis based on a cutting-edge scientific concept --- that everything in the world is a form of Information --- leading to the logical conclusion that the world itself must have had an Enformer. It is not presented as an empirical scientific fact. And it's not pretending to be an academic philosophical theory. As the website says, "it's not something to believe, it's something to think". If you don't like the way I think, think-up a thesis of your own. :cool:
PS___What is your definition of "the epistemic process"?
PPS___ Do you have a personal worldview with "epistemic value, consequences
, or implications"?
PPPS ___What is your theory of Consciousness? Does it have as much "epistemic value" as Pop's theory?
The contemporary philosophy has to go in hand with science and it helps it making progress as well as sense explaining the cultural and epistemic implications of scientific discoveries.
You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio?
Those times you mention without the "weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic" dogma are those of the beginning of civilization. Spirituality brought stability to societies and now science is the next leap ahead, no way back :nerd:
I agree. That's why I base my cutting-edge philosophical thesis on cutting-edge science, both Empirical and Theoretical. But I try to avoid the dogmatic stance that is known as Scientism.
"Physicist John Wheeler coined the term black hole. ... Wheeler said the universe had three parts: First, “Everything is Particles,” second, “Everything is Fields,” and third, “Everything is information.”
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information
"Everything we perceive consists of matter or energy that “vibrates”. It now appears also to be an information system"
https://hagedoorn.org/en/everything-is-information/
Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos : "The universe is a physical system that contains and processes information in a systematic fashion and that can do everything a computer can do"
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html
Everything is information : Physicist Vlatko Vedral explains to Aleks Krotoski why he believes the fundamental stuff of the universe is information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQ2r0zvyoA
Quoting Raul
Where did you get that absurd idea? That assertion sounds like another baseless put-down of something not understood. I don't think you intend to be a Troll, but you're beginning to make wild accusations. Are you offended by the notion that everything in the world is a form of EnFormAction?
Asclepius was the Roman god of medicine. What does that have to do with my thesis that everything in the world is a form of universal Information. One of those forms is mundane Matter, and one is ordinary Energy, and another is common Consciousness. Nobody today has to pray to a god for healing. :cool:
SCIENTISM : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
BTW, what is your personal worldview? Can you summarize it in a few words? :smile:
I like that analogy, and I take it literally. I suspect that the reason scientists and philosophers find Consciousness to be the "Hard Problem" is that they think in terms of physical Quanta, and ignore meta-physical Qualia. But Generic Information (EnFormAction = energy + intention) is both : Everything in the world is a form of Information. For example, the word "information" originally referred to the contents of a Mind : immaterial Ideas. But then Einstein equated amorphous "Energy" with the quality called "Mass", which is how we quantity Matter. Around the same time, Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one Mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, from measurable Quantitative Matter to imaginary Qualitative Mind, known only via the sixth sense of Reason. Therefore, it seems that the invisible stuff we label "Energy", may be the same stuff that causes the Qualia we call "Life" and "Mind".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
I'm currently reading a book by John Horgan, Mind Body Problems ; Science, Subjectivity, & Who We Really Are. In his interview with theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, I noticed their use of terms & concepts similar to those we are using in this thread. For example, Kauffman said, "It didn't take something that was utterly, bizarrely, mysterious and improbable to make a self-reproducing system. . . . It's self-organized." Another term he used was "autocatalysis". And a catalyst is a causal agency that changes something else without itself being changed. It's usually a chemical, but that definition also sounds like Energy and EnFormAction. Both are invisible & intangible, but no longer "mysterious or bizarre".
Kauffman also proposed the existence of "a new creative force or law or something that counteracts entropy, the universal tendency of things to fall apart". That sound like your notion of "Self-organization" and my term "Enformy". At the Santa Fe Institute, Kauffman studies Complexity in nature, which is the opposite of decomposing Entropy. So, another term for "Self-Creation", may be "Complexification", which creates new things with novel Properties, or Qualia. :smile:
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Qualia :
Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html
Complexity : information-theoretic complexity measures such as integrated information have been proposed as measures of conscious awareness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00424/full
"But Energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has". (a quality of Matter)
Likewise, Information is not matter, but it is something that all matter has. (a quality of Matter)
Moreover, Mind (consciousness) is not matter, but it is a quality of a material Brain.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
From the following paragraph you sent above:
" My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke: "
Yes, that's how I see it. Information is inseparable from energy and matter. Metaphysics, for me, is the underlying logic of how things work - the logical causal mechanics. Information connects things by informing them, in a two way interrelation process. The formation of things is an expression of this information. If we could strip away the energy and matter from information, the world would be a field of interrelated, intertwined information. But significantly in a "pocket of order", the information would be integrated. All the information, and subsequently energy and matter would be in the right place ( stable state ) relationally. It would be integrated information! :nerd: Impressions like these lead me to a panpsychic understanding. I think this would be roughly consistent with how Koch, and Tononi would also see it.
Quoting Gnomon
The information at every stage of the process still exists in information + energy = matter form. To go from one mind to another it has to propagate across physical fields. So at this metaphysical level, there doesn't seem to be much difference between human information exchange and object information exchange. The main difference, it seems, is that we are a fast evolving system ( in absolute terms, we evolve from thought to thought), whilst objects are very slow evolving systems ( from our timeframe, possessing only one thought - one instance of integrated information). If we could slow down our evolution ( thought to thought ), to one thought an hour, then we might be on par to say a tree, at one thought a year perhaps a rock. :smile: This is not to say that human consciousness is any less then what we think it is, its more to say that the consciousness that exists all around us is worthy of more respect then it currently receives.
We all put it together differently. What we put together is a function of biology, experience, and point in space ( relativity ). It facilitates our self organization. It is, as you say, our world view, or an expression of our consciousness. Nobody's is perfect, and everybody's is their best current understanding. To put this down in stated form is an achievement I think. I think you have done well! In many respects you are better informed then I am (thanks for the pocket of order), and its been good to exchange notes. That philosophers will agree is a pipedream, that we have agreed on so many things is added affirmation that in those respects we are correct. :up:
Thanks for the self organization links. Neil Theise is also a good introductory source.
My worldview in few words? I consider myself a natural-cognitivist. Professionals on this have explained many things of the world better than me. I rely very much on philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Sandro Nannini, Daniel Andler, Gerog Northoff and of course on great neuroscientists and mathematicians like Stanislas Dehaene, Tononi, Koch, and alon etc. They have really interesting theories and discoveries that change the way we understand things ! You notice I rely on contemporary people, not people from past centuries and I do it on purpose, it proofs to be very efficient in avoiding sterile ideas.
So I read them and I try to understand what they discover. I'm not one of those that tries to create a theory and think it is the cutting-edge theory because I'm not a professional philosopher, I'm not a scientist so I don't have access to the latest technologies so it would be ridiculous and pretentious for me to build a theory of the world myself. Are you a philosopher or a scientist?
Reading through this paragraph I have the impression you don't understand what information is. Do you have a definition of information? I'm curious because is clearly different from the one we find in wikipedia, so I'm curious. What is information for you and what is not information for you?
Could you please mention some of those scientists or philosophers that think on consciousness as physical quanta? Maybe Chalmers? I can tell you not all the scientists and philosophers think on Consciousness in terms of Qualia. The cutting-edge theories on human consciousness are based on integrated information within the brain, not quanta anywhere.
I'm asking this because I think this is a wrong prejudice you have.
Quoting Gnomon
Enformationism : excessive belief in the enformation theories ( I couldn't find a good picture sorry) :lol:
Information is the fundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding.
You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...
One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:
Will you please explain to me how you interpreted that quote to mean that "You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio?". I don't see the connection. Are you inferring an advocacy of Spiritualism?
I enjoy the give & take on this forum. And the reason I post here is a> to get feedback on my non-mainstream ideas, and b> to have those ideas intelligently challenged, so I can improve them. But I don't appreciate an "out of the blue" assertion that my worldview is advocating a return to ancient "dictates" on medicine. :smile:
Enformationism :
[i]As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enform-ationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the
proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value.
Quoting Gnomon
Infinite deity, God? It is evident you have missed exposure or understanding of XXth century onwards... Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Quine... analytic currents like epistemology, logical positivism. The use of "deity" is obsolete in philosophy.
Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times).
Since 19th century many new theories have been raised by professionals in the field of philosophy and science already.
No need to invent new words-marketing-like concepts like your enformation and your G*D
It is clear for example you had no exposure to natural-cognitivism, or heterophenomenology. If you're posting in this forum to learn new things and to challenge yourself the only way is you check out those schools of thought as well as the links I shared with you in my previous posts. :nerd:
Give yourself a chance! :wink:
In John Horgan's interview with Koch, he summarized the IIT theory : "It depicts us as nodes in an infinite web of information, a cosmic consciousness that is pretty close to God, the God of Spinoza if not the Bible". That's similar to my worldview, but I insist on making a distinction between Information as the essence of Energy, and Information as the essence of Mind. As I see it, the Big Bang Singularity contained no mental phenomena, but only Potential for the eventual emergence of Consciousness. So, I disagree with the New Age notion of conscious Atoms. They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense.
Again, Horgan quotes Koch, "You think only humans are truly conscious, and we're a lot less conscious than we think we are, whereas I think everything is at least a little conscious, including jellyfish, compact disk players and dark energy". Early on, I toyed with the Universal Consciousness concept, but eventually came to understand that Actual Mind is an emergent phenomenon, not an essential aspect of the world. However, the Potential for Mind is an essential element of reality.
This conclusion is based on my understanding of how Evolution operates, somewhat like a computer program. So, I think PanPsychism is based on a Spiritual worldview. But, what the ancients interpreted as intelligent & intentional Spirits operating in the world, is what we now know as mundane cause & effect Energy. Hence, Information per se is the potential for Change, and for Meaning. But, Energy is the actual cause of change. That may sound like nit-picking, but it's important to my worldview to make that key distinction between the Energy of Materialism, and the Ghosts of Spiritualism. :scream:
Potential :
Actuality and Potentiality are contrasting terms for that which has form, in Aristotle‘s sense, and that which has merely the possibility of having form. Actuality (energeia in Greek) is that mode of being in which a thing can bring other things about or be brought about by them, the realm of events and facts. . . . . By contrast, potentiality (dynamis in Greek) is not a mode in which a thing exists, but rather the power to effect change, the capacity of a thing to make transitions into different states.
https://www.the-philosophy.com/actuality-potentiality-aristotle
Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
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
PanSpiritualism : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html
Mind-Body Problems: by John Horgan
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Body-Problems-Science-Subjectivity-Really-ebook/dp/B07H4NZCSW/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Mind-Body+Problems&link_code=qs&qid=1612115793&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-3&tag=mozilla-20
What word would you suggest in place of "Materialism", as the opposite of "Spiritualism"? Are you a Materialist or Spiritualist or Other?
I'm sorry the thesis of Enformationism doesn't add any "epistemic value" for you. Nevertheless, it was only intended to add epistemic value to my own personal worldview. :cool:
21st Century Materialism : Perhaps because modern developments in biochemistry and in physiological psychology greatly increased the plausibility of materialism, there was in the mid-20th century a resurgence of interest in the philosophical defense of central-state materialism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy/Twentieth-century-materialism
Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Obviously, you have completely missed the point of the Enformationism thesis. It is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. I do explore the wisdom of the past, such as Aristotle's categories. But I don't accept any pre-scientific notions about the physical world as authoritative. Yet, I do think that pre-scientific sages were not idiots, as you may assume, but merely doing their best to understand How & Why the world works as it does. Modern Science does a good job of the "How", but struggles with the "Why". Hence the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness remains unsolved to this day. At least, a few of us, like Pop and Gnomon, are trying novel approaches, rather than repeating the same old failures of the past. :wink:
PS___Does your worldview explain "not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love"?
Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview?
Quoting Raul
Apparently, you bow to the authority of the priests of Science, and don't trust your own reasoning ability. Yet, you claim to have a personal worldview. Did you just snatch it out of the air? On what authority was it based? What cognitive steps led to that personal belief system?
Since you are posting on a forum for amateur philosophers, why do you think it's "pretentious" to "build a theory of the world" yourself? The Enformationism thesis specifically denies that it is intended to serve as a new religion. Besides, what do philosophers do, it not build theories of the world? What's the point of this forum, if not to share specific opinions & general worldviews? :joke:
Heterophenomenology ("phenomenology of another, not oneself") is a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena.
That objective perspective of Science is fine for studying the physical material world. But it's not adequate to understanding the subjective meta-physical mental world. The topic of this thread is : "a short theory of Consciousness". Has your natural-cognitivist approach contributed any "epistemic value" to the hard question of Consciousness -- of Subjectivity? Dennett thinks he has solved the problem, by merely dismissing it as a problem. He calls Consciousness an "illusion". Is your awareness a hallucination? Maybe that's why you don't trust your own reasoning ability. :nerd:
Quoting Raul
Note the highlighted "fundamental" in my answer. Most people would understand that information, being fundamental, is part of everything, and so cannot be defined in terms excluding itself.
@Gnomon and I are discussing the metaphysics of information. It requires a deeper insight then can be gained from a reading of wikipedia. Kindly avail yourself of such insight before posting more ignorant comments.
One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:[/quote]
A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information.
Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example.
Why do people who do not know very much, think they know it all. Is it because they do not know enough to know any better? :chin:
Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl:
It is not one of those mainstream pop-schools of thought you'rejused to. But there is still hope, you tried to google it, :snicker: search for Naturalism and Andler or Nannini.
Quoting Gnomon
You said before it is... contradictions? :joke:
Quoting Pop
You have so many things to learn. It is evident you guys don't even have a scientific education, and you have invested all this energy writing a theory of everything :rofl: :lol:
Read the Naturalism so you can learn something new. :snicker:
Yes, it has information because you say it has it. Good the mathematicians and physicist thinks differently.
As I just said to Gnomon, it is evident you guys have no scientific studies, at least at university levels.
It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information.
But keep in mind you're just cheating yourself guys.
Quoting Pop
I'm still waiting. Given you understand information so well, it should not be a problem to provide an instance of 0 information. :rofl: :rofl:
In my understanding, this is the beginning of consciousness - the self ordering at the bottom level, leads to ordering in levels above. It is incredibly subtle, but without this ordering at the bottom, thoughts could not form. Ontologically we are grounded in the "pocket of order". We are a being in the universe.
Awareness in the human sense is being able to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings.
This, I suspect, is a function of communication. I suspect that before we could communicate we could have thoughts and feelings, but it is only since the collective consciousness that we could pool information into a collective bin that everybody can draw from, that a new consciousness arose, that allowed us to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings. Its the synergy of many minds that creates a collective consciousness, and this is the emergent consciousness that you are describing as human consciousness. What I'm getting at is that there is an evolving process at play always
Quoting Gnomon
No there is nothing spiritual about my understanding. It is entirely logical. Rigorously logical.
Quoting Gnomon
But the proper form is Enformation, and we don't know what this bundle contains. We know consciousness consists of information + emotion. We know a philosophical zombie is inert with only energy and information ( enformation ). It needs emotion for consciousness. Why should this not work for all life?
The logic is that it should! That it is not so is an ancient religious assumption not based on any scientific proof. The proof that exists, in microbiology, cellular biology, plant neurobiology, quantum biology, is that these things are thinking (cognizing).
Its not something one can accept on the face of it. It requires a personal journey of research and discovery. It takes a long time to accept, so I don't expect any sudden change of heart on your part. But its something to think about in future research.
Lets not respond to trolls.
What a waste of time and money, given the result. I'll be waiting on 0 information from you. :rofl: :rofl:
With pleasure if you pay me enough but it looks you won't have enough money to pay so keep waiting :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
Raul, you accused me of wanting to go backward to a primitive way of thinking about the world. But I'd like offer a different analysis of our contrasting worldviews. Instead of going backwards, I have made a lateral move. In my youth, during discussions on religious topics, I was sometimes accused of being too rational & analytical -- of being a know-it-all -- making no allowance for human feelings and opinions. I was more like you then. But, over the years, I discovered that I did have some things to learn, that are not found in the textbooks of mainstream Science. Ironically, I'm now sometimes accused of being passive-aggressive.
One thing I've learned is that the world is not all simplistic black & white. It's a complex rainbow of perspectives, some of which are true, some false, and some truish. To counter black & white thinking, I like to refer to the Yin/Yang symbol, where both halves contain a spot of the other color. In terms of the Enformationism thesis, I call that the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that the world is characterized by opposing forces. Like the human genders, the hard, aggressive, no-nonsense, Masculine element is compatible with the soft, passive, sentimental Feminine element. But. balancing the inherent conflict between those different perspectives is not an easy task --- as illustrated in the tribulations of marriage between male & female.
My original character was typically masculine : focused on Reasoning, Doing, Analysis, and Sensory Evidence. Now, my new, more balanced, personality makes allowance for Emotions, Feelings, Holism, and Intuitive Evidence. I'm still not completely harmonized to the point of being genderless, but I try to be open to other points of view. However, your aggressive, haughty, know-it-all responses -- to a side of the world you are not comfortable with -- seems a bit too Macho for a philosophical forum, where moderation is the key to a calm, reasoned dialogue. :grin:
Macho : showing aggressive pride in one's masculinity. [or rationality]
Both/And Principle :
[i]* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued reasoning in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
PS___Your hyper-agressive use of smiles ( :lol: :rofl: :lol: ) indicates a tendency to ridicule what you don't emphathize with. Please try to be cool. :cool:
And I think you still are. Your theory is a good proof of it. You tend to appear you bring everything into your eclectic potpourri as I said and you do not accept ideas like mine that are not that eclectic.
Quoting Gnomon
I like rainbows much more :grin:
Quoting Gnomon
Yes but not just 2 forces. Is much more complex than that while it is very pop to think Yin/Yang.
Quoting Gnomon
Do you think being genderless is an harmonized thing? I live with my wife in harmony. Nature and evolution has created human genders. Many see harmony in a gender-full world :love:
Male and females are completely different in the emotional life, their brains are different on how to deal with feeling and emotions, hormones, etc... why to look towards a genderless future? Looks like you try to adhere to any new-age vogue without having a personal opinion. Looks like an extreme eclecticism.
Quoting Gnomon
I see you're full of prejudices :wink:
I'm very calm and reasonable and have a lot of fun arguing with you as I did with Pop :grin:
Quoting Gnomon
This is not always the case. Many times when you have opposing views in science only one gets the prize. Politics is about finding the balance and the agreement but philosophical or scientific truths are different... But this build into your eclecticism all-is-valid approach.
Go to Syria and live a civil war and try to put together the opposing views. You will see sooner or later you will have to decide whether you're on one side because you're christian or on another because you're muslim or leave the country... I know this opens a lot of front but it is reality.
Quoting Gnomon
You should realize what you do with your arguments like this one. I'm very calm and nice but I just tell you what I think as you do with my statements. You mention Einstein here so it gives to your argument, that is a very basic and common sense argument, a strong flavor of scientific authority while for people like me that have a strong scientific background it is clear that the way you mix-up scientific concepts with social or ethical arguments is deceptive and full of fallacies. Another one is when you mention the Qubit below... it can be both 0 and 1 because it can take all the values between 0 and 1. This again makes it clear you don't understand quantum mechanics. It is so evident, don't take this personal I don't even know you.
Quoting Gnomon
Another good example. Fuzzy logic is a system the deals with grades of "truth" yes but truth here in the context of fuzzy logic is not the philosophical truth. Fuzzy logic is used to manage analogic systems vs digital ones for example. You see ? Here you have another fallacy as a result of mixing up science, ethics, religion... ufff
Quoting Gnomon
I was having a lot fun with Pop and I cannot laugh? Com'on Gnomon enjoy life :rofl: I'm maybe Macho but I'm a nice person. Aren't you?
I agree, but the metaphorical "awareness" of an atom or ant is not fully-developed. In my graph of cosmic progression, full Consciousness was attained only after Life emerged only a short time ago, on the cosmic scale. Information (EnFormAction) is the causal force of Evolution, but it only causes consciousness after a long period of complexification and integration, as in IIT. :smile:
Quoting Pop
OK. I'll accept that. In my worldview, Spiritualism was an intelligent rational response to the pre-scientific understanding of ancient people. They saw animals moving & behaving, so inferred that they were motivated by a common invisible force, that they compared to life-giving breath. But they also saw trees moving in the wind, and concluded that invisible Spirits or souls or gods were shaking them (Animism). Some even detected evidence for Spirits in crystals that sparkled with light energy. But today we would attribute those phenomena to non-conscious non-living Energy. Hence, the worldview of Panpsychism that is fashionable today among New Agers, and even some scientists, is based on an outdated understanding of causation. That "breath of the gods" notion might have been logical three thousand years ago, but now we are able to make a practical distinction between Information -- which in some forms has a mind-like quality (meaning) -- and Energy -- which sometimes has a life-like quality (motion, animation), but no human-like mental qualities. This picky distinction is necessary for the logic of my thesis to make sense. :nerd:
Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality.
Spiritualism :
A primitive theory of Cause & Effect, ignorant of physical energies & forces. Enformationism is an update based on generic Information as the “substance” of both Energy & Matter. To Enform is to cause an effect. To be“spiritual” is to discern true causes. Animal Intuition is sufficient to grasp that this reliably follows that. But ancient humans tended to reason beyond the obvious to imagine hidden causes for natural events, such as weather. Invisible spirits & gods were held responsible for both productive rain and destructive storms. But modern reasoning has found mundane causes for those natural phenomena. The chain of causation leads all the way back to the beginning with no miraculous gaps between causes & effect. And each causal event is basically an exchange of energy/information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html
Quoting Pop
Everything? Are you saying that atoms have emotions, and communicate feelings? Perhaps, in a metaphorical sense. But the fine distinction I make is between non-conscious Energy Effect, and Conscious Affect. Effect is a physical (material) change due to energy input. But Affect is the meta-physical (mental) result of a meaningful input of information. It's the same difference between Motion and Emotion. :chin:
Quoting Pop
I'm sorry for allowing your thread to go off-topic. But I enjoy sparring with those of different opinions. I don't really expect to change their minds, but it's good exercise for my flabby philosophical muscles. :joke:
Nah! You're no fun anymore. Your scientific superiority schtick is wasting time on a philosophical thread about Consciousness, which has baffled scientists for ages. Paraphrasing Banno's put-down of such diversions : "because . . . science . . . QED"
Until you have some new ideas of "epistemic value" to contribute, we'll just take our ball, and go-on having fun with the original game. :roll:
schtick : a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc. associated with a particular person.
None of that emergent consciousness is possible without the ordered patterns of consciousness below. It is not turtles all the way down, it is patterns of order creating emergent properties, which when synergized are self ordering - they are equally an evolving process of self organization, where human consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. Its just that their externalities ( the things they are conscious of ) are different. Hence their consciousness is an integration of those externalities, in the same pattern as ours is, in the sense that we integrate the information surrounding us.
Quoting Gnomon
The synergy of atoms creates molecules. The synergy of molecules creates amino acids. The synergy of amino acids is where animate matter emerges. It is the pattern and folding of amino acids that create protein machines that are able to carry out independent cellular functions. For some idea of this, there is the awareness in molecules thread. There are at least 20,000 proteins available for production. To simulate the protein folding our best AI, Deep Mind Alpha Fold can only achieve a 90% success rate, this is for the simplest 150 amino acid chain. The most complicated proteins are 3000 amino acids long!!! There is a 10^150 odd possible combinations. Something in the cell ( its consciousness ) is on top of this. It is within the cells power to create from inanimate matter ( amino acids ), animate matter ( cellular proteins ), of remarkable complexity. It chooses which ones to create and when.
Sorry but Panpsychism is based in observations like these, not as you have assumed it above.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, I think I understand, we have to self organize, and so we are not always entirely free to follow the logic. I don't expect anybody to really, but as I've stated earlier its something to keep in mind for future research.
:cry:
We don't know what emotions are. We have agreed we cannot conceptualize them. We cannot feel each others emotions. If we don't know what something is, how can we say something does not have it? Why would information not contain emotion? An empirical assumption is not a good enough answer.
I'm not saying that I know. Of course I don't.
I agree. And I think you are referring to the self-generating systems within Nature that Deacon calls "Autogens". But, the "ordering" and "organization" of system is the Effect of a Cause.outside the sub-system (holon) that is changed. It doesn't just happen spontaneously.
I call the cause of those "ordered patterns", EnFormAction, because no consciousness is required to create patterns within randomnes. Unless, that is, you want to count the turtle at the bottom of the pile : the one I call The Enformer. I can't say with any certainty that the Enformer, outside the system, is Actually conscious in the same sense that humans are. But logically, since Consciousness has emerged from pre-conscious evolution processes, the Enformer must have possessed the Potential for consciousness. This notion is based on Aristotle's definitions of "Actual" & "Potential". :smile:
EnFormAction : The power to create meaningful patterns within a meaningless randomized system. Higher forms of those patterns are able to recognize the meaning in other patterns. That's what I call Consciousness. Since that power (energy) is invisible, its effects appear to be Self-Organizing, as in the Phase Transitions of physics.
Terrence Deacon's Autogen : A self-generating system at the phase transition between morphodynamics and teleodynamics; any form of self-generating, self-repairing, self-replicating system that is constituted by reciprocal morphodynamic processes
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Order within Chaos : Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. ... This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
If you can recognize the "meaning" within Chaos, you are Conscious.
Slight edit : "where human consciousness = the pinnacle of an evolving process of self organization".
In Darwinian evolution, there is no need for "awareness in molecules". As KenoshaKid pointed-out "No awareness required, just a survival advantage".
However, contingent survival of novel forms is dependent on the pre-set criteria (programming) for what counts as an "advantage" (fitness). And the judge of fitness is what Darwin called Natural Selection (conscious choice?). Charles didn't explain who the chooser was. But I refer to the One who selected the criteria as the Programmer.
So, I think the main difference between our theories of Consciousness is that I model it as a deterministic evolutionary program of evolving information (data), but with the freedom to explore novel solutions. While your model retains a touch of mystery. I place the "awareness" at the beginning (input) and end (output) of the process, not the middle. :nerd:
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
Quoting Pop
I wouldn't call the spontaneous emergence of new forms an "observation", but an interpretation. For example, the sudden crystallization of liquid water into a snowflake might look like magic to someone inclined to think in such terms. But, to a scientist, the unseen steps between liquid & solid are merely due to the "nature" (enthalpy) of water. By that I mean, the water is Programmed to respond to loss of latent heat energy by forming crystals that require less energy to maintain their geometric form. And the "magic" is merely the subtraction of mundane Energy (EnFormAction). :chin:
The Nature of Matter : Aristotle referred to the essential properties of a material object as its "nature". And that natural disposition is defined by "hyle" (malleable stuff) and "form" (design or program). The inherent limits & possibilities of the design determine how the object responds to causal forces.
Enthalpy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion
I know what my emotions are, implicitly. But you can't know my emotional state, except by explicit descriptions of what those feelings mean to me. Or, by judging (conceptualizing) from my behavior compared to yours. So, I'd say that we can "conceptualize" another person's feelings, even though we can't actually feel them. That's what words are for : to share concepts in my mind with you. Ask your wife if she'd like to share her feelings with you. :grin:
If we "know what something is made of, and how it works", then we can say, with some confidence, what properties (qualia) that thing has and doesn't have. However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd:
Projection : the process of displacing one's feelings onto a different person, animal, or object.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=projection+psychology
:up: No it doesn't occur spontaneously. But neither dose human consciousness. As I see it we are still locked into this singular way of being as an evolving biological system. We have not disconnected from those turtles causing us, we still depend on those turtles. This leads to an impression of a multilayered being in a pocket of order, or a being in the universe.
Quoting Gnomon
Or perhaps what is outside the system is a cause of consciousness. The system interacting with what is outside of itself causes consciousness. This is true for integrated information causing our consciousness, but what I'm referring to is that evolution is a form of mind. It causes biological systems to improve their function, there is no choice in the matter, a system must evolve and natural selection will cull the non viable variants, thus the thrust is towards improvement of function. Integrated information will form a concept, and in time this will prove to be correct or not, thus being culled similar to natural selection, thus an improvement of function results. In this way consciousness is still locked into the same process that initially caused it. It will never break free of this process, as interrelation evolution is the only game in town! It is true for atoms as it is for human consciousness, and all the layers of the system in between.
Quoting Gnomon
Proof of definition please.
Some people project their empirical assumptions in exactly the same way. :cool:
On the balance of the evidence: there is 0 evidence that all life does not possesses emotions.
There is quite a lot of evidence that it dose: The chemicals associated with emotion regulation are also found in microbial and plant life: Neurotransmitters acetylcholine and biogenic amines dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine are present not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms. - V.V. Roshchina (2001)
If you follow the logic, which side of the fence is the logical side??
The "things" I was referring to are inorganic objects, and don't have any viscera, no brains, no neurotransmitters, no subjective consciousness, etc. For example, people have been known to attribute feelings to toys, dolls, cars, and especially to therapeutic robots that simulate emotions. But even low-level organisms (amoeba), with some internal organs & neurotransmitters, cannot convey their subjective awareness of feelings to us. So, in the absence of verbal evidence, or mind-reading, they are presumed to be robotic (or zombies). Hence, we infer that their reactions to external stimuli are programmed, scripted, automatic -- with no reflective cognition. They may behave as-if they have subjective feelings, but we'll never know for sure that the observer's subjective impressions are as-is.
That's because these human interpretations (opinions ; presumptions) about non-humans cannot be proven positive or negative, because subjective feelings are not amenable to empirical testing. So, we could debate forever, and not be convinced against our own personal feelings & beliefs about Consciousness. Unless you communicate them to me in words, I only feel that you have feelings, by empathy with your outward behavior that resembles mine. Hence, I project my feelings about your feelings onto you. That's how aura readers can confidently "see" the feelings of inorganic "beings". :joke:
Misplaced Empathy : anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human characteristics and emotions onto inanimate objects
https://www.mindfood.com/article/new-study-reveals-why-it-is-we-feel-empathy-for-inanimate-objects/
Robots created that develop emotions : They are programmed to learn to adapt to the actions and mood of their human caregivers,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809094527.htm
Reflective Cognition : Cognitive science has distinguished between two types of thinking: intuitive and reflective. Intuitive cognition is fast and automatic, whereas reflective cognition is slow and deliberate.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1906
Inorganic Auras : The only similarity between inorganic and organic beings is that all of them have the awareness-bestowing pink or peach or amber emanations
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jjudd/energy/partI/universe/inorganicb.htm
That's why I conclude that Human Consciousness is merely the current stage of a continuous on-going evolutionary process of complexification & integration. Perhaps, even mind-reading silicon-based beings in the future may be more empathetic & conscious than our primitive 21st century Awareness. But, I don't dwell on such speculative notions that are beyond my comprehension.
I can however, rationally imagine tracing the development of awareness back through time, and the degree of Information Integration (complexity & wholeness) diminishes as it gets closer to the beginning of time. Consequently, only since the emergence of organisms with language have we been able to share the feelings of others rationally, as opposed to the vague non-verbal sensations of emotional Empathy. :love:
What do you suppose is "outside the system", constantly "interacting" with components of the system to cause energy exchanges to evolve into self-awareness?
In my thesis, I don't claim to know anything definite about what outside influence might have "caused consciousness" to emerge. But I can extrapolate from what we currently know about how the system works, in order to extend the chain of causation one step beyond the Big Bang. And, the necessary features of that First Cause seem to be essentially the same as those attributed to Creator Gods, from the beginning of history. That's why I reluctantly use the neologism "G*D", to serve as a generic modern version of Brahma, Jehovah, & Ahura Mazda, etc.. :halo:
This is not a logical conclusion from your argument. The logical conclusion should be a neutral stance from the logic of your argument. Then when provided with evidence that they posses chemicals associated with emotions, and when you observe them cognizing and dealing with problems, the leaning should be towards an acceptance that they are more likely to have emotion and consciousness then not.
White blood cell and bacteria, playing cat and mouse in a petri dish. 1.5min long
:up: Communication is verbal and non verbal. We still use the non verbal form of communication that creates empathy. This is the necessary aspect of consciousness ( the aspect a P.Zombie cannot have ).
The verbal aspect is not strictly necessary. It improves consciousness, but dose not create it - it is an optional element.
Quoting Gnomon
This is where self organization from the perspective of complexity theory has been really helpful to my understanding. Its made me realize that there is a singular activity that everything is involved in and arises out of - interrelational evolution I like to call it. Everything evolves out of an interaction with its environment. The interaction places evolutionary pressure on the system, and its environment. It is what we are presently ( in this discussion ) involved in, and it is what a rock is also involved in.
From an information perspective: internally the system is articulated and integrated by information, like a hurricane, and its outer edges are rubbing against external information. It must evolve in this setting, so its constraints and possibilities are entirely dictated by this setting. It is formed entirely from externalities and entirely enmeshed with its externalities. The internal and external are two sides of the one coin. So what possibilities arise, arise due to this interrelation. From this perspective it can be seen how awareness was always part of the process. Information exchange, and cognition of information exchange is built into the process. As it evolved it became ever more refined, as a function of the refining effect of evolution, eventually it evolved into what we commonly call consciousness. There were however elements of it at every level, and as we have mentioned previously, it is based in externalities, in a "pocket of order" causing it. Hence panpsychism, in my view.
** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state".
I have decided to accept this assertion as fact. From here it seems possible to build a logical bridge from the "pocket of order" to human consciousness, and then via this bridge, attribute emotions back to the universe. There are still substantial gaps, but who knows what else will be discovered / understood. Its an interesting journey in any case. :smile:
This is a side note from our current discussion. Before I found this thread on the provenance of Consiousness, I hadn't thought of that evolutionary process specifically in terms of technical theories of Self-Organization -- although that was implicit in many of my blog posts. But, I am currently working on a blog-review of a book by a modern philosopher looking at science from an Aristotelian perspective.
Today, the notion of evolutionary Self-Organization came-up. So I did a little research, and added a note on Aristotle's notion Immanent Causation, which is essential to self-organization. A couple of links are added below. I also found an old blog post on a similar topic. FWIW, Here's an excerpt from Post 45 :
Throughout history, deep thinkers have produced various theories to explain the compelling “appearance” of design in nature. Teleology : Aristotle's hierarchy of causes from First to Final, was presented as an “impersonal, undesigned, aspect of nature” equivalent to natural laws. Holism : Medieval meta-physicians produced a theory of Mereology, in which parts & wholes interact in a sort of mathematical logic to drive nature toward a final solution. Conatus : Aristotle called the tendency of things to evolve toward their natural predetermined state, “striving” , which is like a combination of Energy and Enformy. Vitalism : Gregory Bateson called his natural biological force, ?lan vital. Autopoiesis : The acorn-to-oak-tree process is an example of self-organization, and several thinkers have tried to discern how it works. Systems Theory : A modern version of Holism is the science of Systems, which studies how parts & wholes work together to maintain the stability and success of the system, to ensure that it fulfills its function. Morphogenesis : A theory of biological enformation based on fields as the wholes that influence the parts to act cooperatively, and with single purpose, to reach a future form & function. This latter is a return to the notion that the future goal & purpose was set by the creator or designer or programmer. Thus, the “appearance” of design is an inference from a mechanical system that works as-if it was created for some practical reason, just as a clock serves a purpose that is not found in the mechanism itself.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
What Is Self-Organization? http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7104.pdf
Self Organization : http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7104.pdf
Immanence and Causation in Spinoza : https://philarchive.org/archive/MARIAC-12
I thought you might see it this way. :smile: But thanks for all the background, very very interesting.
Since I have a well-worked-out theory of how Information works in the world -- like a progressive computer program -- for me the "logical conclusion" is to reserve the label "consciousness" only for the most highly developed forms of Generic Information (self-consciousness), and to assume that lower level objects & organisms are not conscious enough to warrant that label. The Aristotelian Potential for consciousness exists at all levels of evolution, but only in the later stages does Actual Consciousness" emerge.
But, since your worldview begins with Consciousness at the beginning, the logical conclusion might be to assume that everything in the world is aware, from the bottom-up. It's all a matter of degrees of development, yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking. And I prefer to stay as close as possible to Scientific Thinking. To me, "Information" is a more "neutral" term, with fewer implications for Animism & Spiritualism. :smile:
Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.
Magical thinking is a child's belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens.
PS__Actually, my worldview also begins with something like Consciousness, before the beginning. That's what I call G*D. But, apart from a form of self-consciousness, I can't imagine what an eternal deity would be conscious of. I can guess that G*D is aware of the goings-on in He/r creation. But that's not the same as what some imagine as Cosmic Consciousness. So, again, I try not to waste too much time speculating on such things, that we can never know, except via direct revelation. And I remain skeptical of the various biblical or traditional claims to speak for God.
PPS__At the early stages of development of Consciousness, as in atoms, I call those primitive exchanges of Information : "Energy".
I can generally agree with that assessment. But I still like to reserve the term "consciousness" for the higher levels, and use "information" or "energy" to describe the early steps toward full self-awareness. Also, I admit that my worldview is similar to Panpsychism. But, because of the Magical & Spiritual implications of that term, I prefer to find other ways to describe the notion that "everything is Information". For me, all Magic is in the believing Mind, not in external powers. :smile:
That all things are conscious because they arise from the same process - interrelational evolution, is the most important consideration to me. Human consciousness is not something special or set apart from that process. Of course human consciousness is the most evolved and complex expression of that process. Closing the door on all-things-are-conscious, without proof, on the basis of ancient assumptions seems like magical thinking to me.
You have a logical problem with your conception - you cannot define human consciousness. You cannot draw a line in the sand separating it from other forms of consciousness. It contains no distinctive attributes. Self awareness is inherent in the process of self organization, the process is innately self aware - through a process that creates and maintains a self as something distinct from non self. It seems, what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness
Most of your other constructions I can generally agree with. I can say that even Matera, Varela, and Capra, the broad originators of this systemic, and embodied conception that I am continuing, would agree with your dualistic conception of consciousness. I am keen to press beyond it as I think it is precisely at the point where one thinks that one's consciousness is not set apart, that one can then relate to all the other consciousness in the universe as a being in the universe. At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. Its a good feeling. It leads to universal relatedness. A conception like this embedded into the psyche of the world population is what is missing from the destructive and unsustainable prevailing dogma, so I'm doing what little I can to change this.
However, to each his own, as it must be. :smile:
I agree. But the last time I had a discussion with a rock, it had nothing interesting to say. That was a one-way conversation between Rocky & me. :razz:
Seriously though, the evolutionary dialog in my view is essentially what Hegel called "The Dialectic" : action provokes reaction, which provokes the next action. :smile:
Quoting Pop
I don't remember the context of that assertion. But I think "cognition" is a bit more than "a reaction to a disturbance". Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin:
Cognition : the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
You sound disappointed. Was it the godless, meaningless implication of "the appearance of design"? The rest of Blog Post 45 has a less mechanistic conclusion. :yum:
Natural versus Supernatural Teleology : Functions versus Goals
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
All those elements are present in the form of the system disturbed - in the form of the rock.
Quoting Gnomon
The disappointment is more in that the understanding we form, is something we have come to rely on and depend on, and so can not be moved very quickly. It takes a lot of time - years . Trying to convince you of a better alternative understanding is like banging my head against a brick wall, and the same for you in trying to convince me. So this reality is a bit disappointing. :angry:
Its up to the higher consciousness to speak to the lower one in terms it understands. Give the rock a kick next time and see what it says. I'm sure it will acknowledge a response. :razz:
Actually, I can define "human consciousness". It's the uniquely human perspective of the world, that homo sapiens have in common. Every other worldview remains a mystery, unless they speak my language. But some people still project their own inner views onto alien consciousnesses. :smile:
Quoting Pop
That's not what I meant to imply. But I do think that "anthropocentric self awareness" is the only kind I can identify with, due to the human ability to put their awareness into conceptual words, instead of just behavioral actions. I assume that the higher mammals, that have a lot in common with human mammalian physiology (e.g. centralized brains), are self-aware to some degree. That typical feeling has been corroborated by the Mirror Test. But even that experiment gets less & less indications of self-conception as they go further down the food chain. If an Octopus is self-aware, does that mean that Calamari is murder? :joke:
Quoting Pop
My worldview is inherently hierarchical, so I don't relate to Octopi as peers. They don't apeer to me as moral equals. My view has a fairly clear pecking order. So I can justify being a carnivore, who eats the flesh of living sentient creatures. Although, I'm not a fan of tentacles : raw, fried, or boiled. :yum:
Peer : noun. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
My last relationship with a Rock, of lower social status, was rather rocky. And it ended in stony silence. :love:
This is a very vague magically anthropocentric notion , in my view.
Quoting Gnomon
Biblical?
What is the nature of the information that the senses input?
How would you describe that information?
How does that information compare to the energies that stimulated the senses?
And finally, how does the brain's interpretation of the information that was input by the senses compare to the energies that stimulated the senses?
Are you asking is the information energy? It is enformation as @Gnomon has conceived it.
Quoting Tres Bien
We cannot separate energy and information. They always exist together and embedded in matter, travelling in waves or particles ( as per double slit experiment ). The brain integrates enformation. The information and energy is channeled through the brain structure in such a way that it becomes intelligible to us. Mapping brain function is something I leave to neurobiologists. But I like Roger Penrose and co's proposal that the energies that stimulate senses ultimately end up as quantum permutations in cellular microtubules, thus causing understanding, If that is what you are asking.
Are you saying that information and energy are synonymous?
Information = mass * velocity^2 ~?~
Oh, no, now I see, I think. Are you saying that they are two distinct entities but they always exist together?
Could it be that information and energy are not actually channeled but rather are instantly and always present everywhere at once, briefly glowing intensely in particular spots which we perceive as thought?
Oh, never mind, that probably sounds totally implausible and possibly downright goofy and illogical.
That is putting it nicely! I like it. I think it would be channeled, and also we would move into, and through it - briefly lighting it up in a self interested way, or briefly glowing intensely as you say.
excellent but first i'll have to change my username to tokinoutmi-arse and you to popcorn.
Hey! That's just philosophy. Philosophers have been arguing over the same big questions for thousands of years. And made little progress on the really "hard questions" : the ones that have little hard evidence to base an opinion on. The easier ones we turn over to empirical science. But, stubborn as rocks, we keep on trying. Your worldview is very close to mine, except for a few quibbles. So, keep on pounding those bricks into dust. :up:
I'll continue to use it If you don't mind. Its been good to exchange notes, and speak about the big picture on a deeper level then I normally am able to. As you say, there is mostly agreement between us. :up: :smile:
I agree, up to the last sentence.
Closing the door to magical thinking is a basic tenet of open-minded skepticism. It's like slamming the lid on Pandora's Box, after you see what kind of demons are flying out of it. The "proof" of the magical pudding is the eating thereof. If it tastes like fantasy & fiction, don't swallow it, expecting nutritious facts & reality . Magical thinking doesn't require evidence, only faith & imagination. :cool:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
___Carl Sagan
But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
PS__I'm not saying that your Theory of Consciousness is based on Magical Cognition. But the implicit notion of Universal Consciousness is common among those who feel free to attribute meaning & significance to coincidences & accidents. Also, to Those who see meaningful patterns in tea leaves & animal entrails & lines on palms. All I'm saying is, don't be so open-minded that your lie-detector compass gets blown about by every wind of doctrine. :nerd:
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
? Carl Sagan
No. Scientific. And Rational. Emotion and Sentiment sometimes motivate well-intentioned, but futile, attempts to turn the stratified & ranked system upside-down -- as in Marxism. Perhaps, in the distant future, artificial human culture will achieve some measure of Egalitarianism. But even then, I suspect that the little fish will be at the bottom of the food chain. Fortunately, the prey can sometimes turn the tables on the predators, as in the Musk Ox Defense. :grin:
Hierarchy is an important concept in a wide variety of fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, organizational theory, systems theory, systematic biology, and the social sciences (especially political philosophy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Note : Enlightenment-era science dropped the catholic hierarchies of church authorities, for good reasons. But the hierarchical structures of nature are god-made, not man-made.
LITTLE FISH OF THE SEA, UNITE !!!
MUSK OX DEFENSE
I was surprised that you found my hierarchical worldview to be a biblical or political prejudice. So, I want to clarify my usage of the term. In my current book review, about Modern Science versus Aristotelian Philosophy, the topic of Natural Hierarchies came up. And in response to your forum question, I added a note to differentiate between socio-cultural organization (military & priesthood ranking ; political power) of human importance & power, and the natural organization of organic complexity (degree of enformation ; self-organization) as exemplified in food chains. Here's the note I added :
Note :
John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means.
NATURAL HIERARCHY OF ORGANIZATION
SOCIAL HIERARCHY PYRAMID
I'm offended that you are still laboring under that mistaken attribution. That's just the opposite of my intention. My thesis proposes a Paradigm Shift in science, not a status quo of social organization. In the quoted post, I made a clear distinction between Natural Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy. The status quo of Nature is always evolving, but there's not much that humans can do about it. Yet Social organizations are also evolving, and humans can do something about its inequities.
That's what the Social Contract philosopher was saying in the quote : "John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means." And his ideas influenced the American Revolution against " the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality" So, your interpretation of my post is exactly the opposite of my intention. And I await your apology.
However, when I said that my worldview is "inherently hierarchical", I was referring -- not to politics -- but to the obvious evolutionary pyramid of species from single-cell organisms to res cogitans. You may not like the natural food-chain of apex predators at the top, with herbivores in the middle, and vegetation near the bottom. But, hey, that's life : "red in tooth & claw".
However, If you accept the First Cause or Creator Deity explanation for the contingent existence of our world, then you must accept that the natural hierarchy of Life, is inherent in whatever plan is being worked-out in the on-going sequence of Cause & Effect. If you don't accept such intentional causes, then it's all random, and there's nothing that res cogitans can do about the status quo. :sad:
PS__I was just kidding about being offended. I am not so easily upset by the verbal tug-of-war of philosophical dialog. And I apologize, if I gave you the wrong impression. :cool:
PPS__So, you are " trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality". That reminds me of a saying in the former socially-stratified plantations of America after the Civil War freed the slaves : "bottom rail's on top" (referring to fence rails). By that, they meant the social order had been turned upside-down. Ironically, a century later, the "bottom rail" still has not made it to the top of the pyramid.
Thanks. I was hoping some of my neutral terms were merely misconstrued as political. The links below go to blog pages that I revised due to your feedback on this thread. Of course, even the revised views may not be exactly how you see the world.
The blog post is a book review of philosopher Edward Feser, who claims that “Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.” Although his theology is different from mine, his philosophy seems to be compatible with my own. :smile:
Immanent Causation & Self-Organization : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page77.html
Hierarchical Evolution : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page78.html
Aristotle and Einstein : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page69.html
I'd like to do a short simple essay. But, since the concept of Enformationism is so comprehensive of everything in the world, it's hard to know where to start. I've attempted to summarize a few of the basic notions, but I usually get off-base responses that indicate incomprehension. Since this thesis postulates a radical new paradigm, based on the sciences of Information and Quantum Theory, few people, including astute posters on this forum, will find it fits their own Classical or Mainstream worldviews.
Fortunately for me, there is a handful of scientists that have turned their careers toward understanding the cosmic implications of Information. Also, there is a think-tank in New Mexico, the Santa Fe Institute, which is "dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems ". And expanded Information Theory is at the core of Complexity & Adaptation (self-organization). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute
The best way to explain my thesis, may be to link posters to the Abstract of the Enformationism thesis. It skips the introduction, and goes through some of the steps that I followed in forming my personal worldview from the simple notion that "everything is Information". But the Abstract consists of 14 online pages. And few posters are interested enough to spend the time. What do you think? Is it too long for an article? :worry:
The Enformationism Hypothesis : Abstract - Research Methods - Motivation & Conception
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html
Simply put, as indicated on the Welcome Page, Enformationism is a worldview grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the essential substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism.
On the topic of all-encompassing topics, I'm just beginning to read a long, complex book written by a professional Complexity theorist, who started as a Physicist. I mention this to you, because the book addresses some of the same topics we have touched-on in this thread. For example, he devotes several pages in this 700 page tome to the notion of Self-Organization. Plus, he calls his thesis "the information-theoretic ontology". And one of his favorite neologisms is "the rhizome of reality", which is a metaphor for an interconnected root system in Biology. He says : "a rhizome is essentially messy and non-hierarchical". Which may be in accordance to your non-hierarchical notion of Self-Organization. But, I doubt that he's talking about the evolutionary natural hierarchy of kinds and species, that I said was essential to my worldview. :nerd:
Information-Consciousness-Reality : [i]How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence[/i]
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Information-Consciousness-Reality&qid=1613441480&s=books&sr=1-1
Yes, a complex adaptive system is what consciousness is. :smile:
Quoting Gnomon
I think that would be too long. I was thinking perhaps a thousand words or less. It would not need to be definitive, perhaps an introductory overview? That everything is information, and that information links everything is not well understood here, so it might be of value to have something to refer to when the situation arises.. You could also frame it as enformation, as that is its logical base. Perhaps suggest it as an article, and see what the response is.
Quoting Gnomon
I wont allow myself to read other peoples interpretation, until my own is fully formed. Once I fully understand it then I will compare my understanding to theirs. I still have some way to go before I would say I fully understand it - such that it is a normal part of my thinking.
Yes, I thought so. How about the thesis Introduction, which is only 5 pages? Unfortunately, it refers to cutting-edge scientific concepts that most posters may not be familiar with, and which will sound like nonsense, without some extensive explication. That's why I have two glossaries : one from 12 years ago, and one that I try to keep up-to-date.
Evolution of the Enformationism concept : From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page4.html
[i]"The point I’m trying to make here is that energy, matter, space, and time are all re-formulations of the same essential substance, Information.
I emphasize the term Information in order to show that Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter."[/i]
Quoting Pop
That's strange. I read lots of other people's interpretations, even as I'm working on refining my own understanding. Anyway, the pertinent aspect of the book to this thread is the title : Information-Consciousness-Reality : [i]How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence[/i]. The author equates Information with Consciousness and Reality. Which is basically what my own thesis does.
Sounds very limited and boring. Try taking an art class or dance class and enjoy life!
Quoting Gnomon
It is difficult to condense complicated ideas into simple broadly understood concepts, but I think its worth the effort as the simpler explanations have the broadest uptake. I think you do this quite well.
Quoting Gnomon
:up: - entirely the same kind of stuff, just much more complex.
Quoting Gnomon
I agree, the way I like to put it is that information gives form to things.
Actually. that's the old website. Due to your prodding, I am currently working on an updated version of the Enformationism Introduction. It will be the next post on my blog, but I may adapt it for an article on this forum. Since the website was uploaded 12 years ago, I've learned a lot more about how Information works in all aspects of the world. But, other than some minor changes to the website, I probably won't try to give the site a complete overhaul. :meh:
Quoting Pop
I'm currently reading the book I referred to before : Information-Consciousness-Reality. The author's specialty is real-world applications of Complexity Theory. In his introduction, he comments that "complexity science invites a systemic and holistic paradigm . . . . and a bottom-up approach to the understanding of reality". My own thesis requires a Holistic perspective, or a Systems Theoretic standpoint ( for those who find "Holism" too New Agey). In another place, he says "Real World complexity (from inanimate self-organizing structure formation to emergent phenomena like life and consciousness) . . . " (my emphasis) :smile:
Ill look forward to it. :up:
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
This is roughly my understanding also. Information is fundamental, so the universe is an information processing system. It is self organizing - best described as an evolving complex adaptive system, where evolution is achieved interrelationally, where the form that survives is the fittest form.
It is bottom up, as atoms form molecules, and molecules form matter, and so on. This suggests self organization down to plank length, steadily increasing in size to the macro scale, and then, logic would suggest, this pattern must continue to infinite size beyond our own universe. In Goldilocks pockets of order ( where water is present ), the order will cause better ordered patterns of atoms until life is caused - its just a matter of time, and the universe has all the time it needs. :smile: Once life is caused: it is a complex adaptive system that must evolve interellationally ( with the information surrounding it ), where natural selection deems what is the fittest form, so better ordered states of life are inevitable. There is no end to this, so consciousness is potentially infinite.
I think this is a state of the art, or as you say a cutting edge understanding. It certainly makes the most sense to me. Within these concepts a BIG picture understanding seems possible, but I am a very cautious person so have to mull over this some more, and currently am otherwise occupied. :sad:
When you get to the cutting edge of understanding, you then have the opportunity to step beyond it. And I have a question for you that requires stepping beyond the cutting edge, I think: Everything has a quality ( qualia ). Is information the quality ( qualia ) of energy, or is energy the quality of information? or are they two sides of the one coin whose quality is matter?
Well, if everything in the world is an emergent form of Generic Information (the power to enform), then of course Qualia is a form of Information. But it's essentially a feeling in the mind of a sentient observer, not a physical object (E=MC^2). So, Qualia qualify as "Energy" only if those mental feelings are able to cause effects in other minds or objects. But, I prefer to discriminate between physical Energy, as studied by Physicists, and meta-physical Memes, as studied by Psychologists. In my worldview, EnFormAction (generic information) is the fundamental form of Causation -- the creative power of G*D, so to speak. So, Qualia & Quanta are emergent forms of that universal causal potential. But the causal power of Qualia is best expressed in words, concepts & symbols, not in bullets, bombs, & balls of fire.
Unfortunately, causal mental states too often get mixed-up with ancient notions of Chi, Prana, and Spirit, which are now confused with modern concepts of physical energy : as illustrated in fictional scenes of martial artists and Marvel Comic superheroes "throwing" Chi in the form of energy balls. The ball of fire is easy to see in movies & cartoons, but in real life, the observer has to imagine the chi ball that is being pantomimed by the thrower. So, the invisible energy ball must be believed, in order to be "seen". That's why the metaphysical ambiguity of invisible intangible Qualia lends itself to various magical beliefs. :cool:
Qualia ; Quale :
[i]Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
1. Qualia are metaphysical Properties considered apart from physical Things. Properties are mental attributions or essences (e.g colors), rather than physical sensations (e.g vibrations). Mathematical relationships (ratios) are virtual properties.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html
THROWING CHI
The information and the energy are one and the same. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle came to mind when I read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
At the simplest atomic level, the very act of measurement influences what you are measuring - the input.
Information is really an abstract concept. Its an abstraction we create ourselves that doesn't really exist. Information means nothing without a vessel to carry it, at least as far as our perception goes.
Quoting deletedmemberTB
Most would argue that it is through evolution, some through divine design. Or bodies may evolve the capability to process the inputs we receive according to whether it is useful or harmful to us. The smell of arsenic is unpleasant to us. Our bodies recognize it as destructive energetically. Conversely, the smell of fresh bread is appealing, perhaps we evolved the capability to detect the smell of constituent properties that over eons of evolution, our bodies have learned are favorable to our health. Survival instincts probably amplify this in the case where we are suffering from starvation.
I have now uploaded a new blog post entitled : Introduction to Enformationism. And I will soon try to adapt it for a forum article. But, I still have a gnawing feeling that I'm taking some key concepts for granted, because they are familiar to me, but not to those who haven't studied Information Science, informally, for several years. So, if you have time to read 5 pages, I'd appreciate some feedback. :smile:
Intro to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
That's true. But it also applies to Mathematics. And Energy is essentially an abstract relationship (800 degrees Celsius of the match, relative to 72 degrees of the tinder) between hot & cold, for instance. The potential is in the ratio, which can actualize changes in matter. :nerd:
Thermodynamics : Generally it is defined as the ratio of desired output to required input. Energy efficiency (i.e. ratio of output energy to input energy) is primarily based on the 1st law of thermodynamics.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermodynamic-efficiency
Sorry. Here it is : :yikes:
Intro to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
But again you can argue that is just out of perception. Try to define any perceived quanta of energy or elemental particle through an analogy where you cannot just choose a medium like a star for heat, or an atomic nucleus for distance. Can you think of any information that represents the universe without needing a physical or energetic phenomenon to explain it?
The radius of an electron is a property of an electron. We stick a label of information on it to categorise it at an abstract level. When a programmer compiles a program, the if statements and for loops are no longer relevant as information, it's just machine code after compilation, or a program and the output it creates happens whether these statements were ever present in the first place. And once the program is run, 1 or million times, its output occurs with or without any changes to the labels. Could the universe be the same?
If the universe was designed, what use is the information to the designer anymore once it is all set in motion?
If you ask me how I feel, and I reply, you can argue that my response contains an abstract representation of how I feel, and that it contains information. But if you measure my height, have you retrieved an abstract representation of my height, or just understood the reality of my dimensions and created that abstraction yourself?
If we cannot create an analogy that involves physical objects to describe information, then surely information is dependent on the objects energy, quanta, properties themselves. Would the universe not be more efficient if it doesn't require the concept of information as the inherent properties already define it.
Do we disassemble them into what they are physically using just our own imaginations?
What I found interesting was the background information - Plato, enlightenment, Shannon, etc. For the article, I would briefly narrate the history, and then jump straight in to the hyper relevant and factual stuff. "Information ? Energy ? Matter". How everything is information, and how information connects everything. How the universe is an information processing system. How information creates the patterns that entangle energy and matter. How human consciousness is the most evolved or complex example of this.
This is just my own bias however. I tend to prefer things in list or point form, logically reduced and to the point - this is just me, there is nothing wrong with how you have expressed yourself. :smile:
I do provide some lists in the blog, on specific topics. But Enformationism is such a holistic wide-ranging inter-related concept, that it's hard for me to think of it in a linear 1 - 2 - 3 format. If I had some training in philosophy or mathematics, that itemization might come more naturally. Instead, I'm self-taught in a haphazard manner. And most of my philosophical learning has occurred after I retired 11 years ago. As a Designer-Architect, I do tend to think holistically, rather than reductively & sequentially, like an engineer, or scientist.
My Enformationism thought process began with a kernel concept, based on an observation by a quantum physicist, speaking of the "superposition" of "virtual" particles of matter. He said something like : "it's all information; nothing but information." From that all-is-information notion, I just jumped into the middle, and started flailing around in all directions, like a beginning swimmer.
In an early blog post, I tried to summarize the concept of EnFormAction . So, I added two lists, defining that neologism from two different perspectives (link below). Here's another list, presenting a summary of my speculation on how Information evolved into Consciousness. But it assumes a prior understanding of some essential features of Information, beyond the simplistic definition by Shannon. And each upward step in complexity is the result of inherent Self-Organization, built-in to the creative energy of EnFormAction. :smile:
Progression of Evolution :
1. World Program as Singularity
2a. EnFormAction as Causation
2b. Physics as Energy
3. Chemistry as Matter
4. Biology as Life
5. Psychology as Mind
6. Sociology as Culture, Religion, Politics
7. Philosophy as Reflective Mind
8. Cosmology as Worldview
9. Artificial Intelligence as self-programming Computers, Robots
10. Next . . . . . Omega Point deity?
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Yes, but our perceptions of objects in physical reality are immediately interpreted into subjective mental abstractions (concepts), representing the ultimate abstractions underlying the real world. Here's my review of cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's “Interface theory of perception”. :smile:
Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
The Case Against Reality : https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth-ebook/dp/B07JR1FDXH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=J8QCEZE2ZI2N&dchild=1&keywords=the+case+against+reality+why+evolution+hid+the+truth+from+our+eyes&qid=1614035239&s=books&sprefix=The+Case+Against+Reality%2Cdigital-text%2C234&sr=1-1
This tends to be the trend these days, so it is I who is old fashioned and reductionist. I was really just thinking about the time most people ( including myself ) put into reading these things. My web stats show an average retention of 3 minutes. So I tend to think short and to the point is the way to go, but I could be wrong - its not as if I know the answer, I was just stating my personal preference. I find your style is easy to read and understand, so that is half the battle won. :up:
Quoting Gnomon
That's how I imagine a thought works: the object of thought is the nucleus, whilst ones knowledge is in superposition of it. Of course one's knowledge can only assume a partial superposition. :sad:
The idea that energy is the fundamental element is deficient, as energy has to have form, so there is something informing it. Of course the logical difficulty here is that energy and information ( enformation ) are inseparable, so that's why I wonder if one is a quality of the other? Or is matter a quality of the two together? - I feel there is something in this, but I just cant quite get at it - yet!
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, the observation is that it is a self organizing universe where each layer of self organization gives rise to an emergent property. This is well illustrated in cells where different patterns of amino acids combined create cellular proteins of various different function. This would be the systems / embodied perspective, but complexity theory really brings it home.
Here's another attempt to present the Enformationism concept as a numbered or bulleted list. It's adapted from the website.
Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
1. The Enformationism hypothesis begins with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible energy or tangible matter, but abstract spirit, soul, or mind. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality are nothing stranger than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought that we take for granted in our everyday thinking. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0076.xml
3. Axiom : Consciousness is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter and Energy are condensed forms of abstract, ethereal information.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, metaphysical Information Sciences.
Yes. Most Cosmologists take it for granted that Energy and Natural Laws existed prior to the Big Bang. And they assume that Life and Mind are merely accidental products of collisions between matter & energy. I have tried to reverse the order of priority in the thesis and blog. But most materialist philosophers find it difficult to imagine that something as ethereal as Mind Stuff could be the ultimate reality. :worry:
Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of God is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
What is wrong with - Enformationism posits that the fundamental substances of reality is not energy or matter but mind.
Quoting Gnomon
:up:
Quoting Gnomon :up:
Abiogenisis theory from a dozen or so perspectives / disciplines agrees that self organisation led to life. Self organization = Consciousness! Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization.
Quoting Gnomon
:up: Yep, yep, yep. And there are plenty of references - Santiago school of cognition.
Quoting Gnomon
These tend to be older guys like ourselves. There is no understanding from this perspective. Not even a hint of an understanding. Not only is there no theory, but there is not even the vaguest conception of how one might arise. A thought dose not arise in the brain, but from all the system layers a brain depends upon - all the layers of the system have to be integrated for the brain to function and for the next thought to arise. As we look back along the causal chain we end up outside the complex biological system in a universal pocket of order with enformation creating molecules. That's what causes the next thought to arise.
From monism an explanation is possible. It may not be the ultimate explanation, but its a step in the right direction, I feel - in more ways then one! Panpschism is gaining momentum, with people like Tononi, Koch, Hoffman, etc, but it will be up to the millennial generation to really cement it into place. You and I will just beat our heads against a brick wall, but who knows we may displace a brick or two along the way. :grin:
I'll take that under advisement. But now I'm thinking about adding another, even more controversial, conclusion or Coda. Something along the lines of :
[i]A possible corollary to the Enformationism Thesis is that "everything happens for a reason". But the Reason for Being may not have anything to do with You as a singular sentient being. The rational basis of reality, and the logic of evolution, may instead serve the long-range intention of the anonymous First Cause - Creator - Programmer - Enformer.
Unfortunately nobody knows what that ultimate goal might be. Except that it seems to have something to do with Complexity & Consciousness. Yet, the element of Randomness, implies that some freedom from determinism is essential to this exercise in Enformation.
So, your personal role in the process of computing that Final Answer may be as an independent-minded improvisational role-player in the on-going story of Evolution toward a Universal Mind in space-time, as envisioned by Teilhard deChardin.
But, your guess is as good as mine. So I play my role, and construct my character, for my own personal reasons. And you are somewhat free to do likewise.[/i]
Still, too wordy. But I feel the need to justify each conjecture beyond the bare facts. Such speculation might just dig me in deeper over my head. But then, what's the point of philosophy if not to go beyond Ontology (being) into Epistemology (knowing)? :worry:
Yes. I think a revival of the old Panpsychism worldview is a step in the right direction. But it is currently most popular in the form of mystical magical New Age religions. Apparently the notion that everything, including a grain of sand, is conscious makes them feel a part of something greater than themselves. However, I think it's more comforting to feel that humans are an important part of the whole. However, our self-importance is diminished somewhat by the knowledge that the higher animals are also sentient. So, homo sapiens seems to be merely one step in the stairway to heaven, not the "chosen people" with a reservation in the Eternal Bliss suite. :cool:
This is more like it, in my opinion ( particularly the stuff highlighted in bold ). I am much more inclined to read something like this as you are unifying and integrating your knowledge and drawing some conclusion from it. The conclusion can never be complete, as consciousness is infinite, but it pushes the boundary of consciousness to the edge of knowledge and from there one can imagine what human consciousness might look like in a future time.
In art the edge of knowledge is the sweet spot. In stepping beyond it one becomes truly creative. Everything up until the edge is just a repetition of something somebody else has done. This seems less well understood in philosophy.
Quoting Gnomon
I think, to be creative, whether in art or philosophy - such that one is producing truly original work is a form of heaven in itself. Don't you think?
FWIW, I have added a pop-up on the last page of the Introduction to Enformationism blog post. It is a revised version of the Abstract post previously. It's more compact and less personal than this one. But it's not really an article. I may reserve the abstract for those who specifically request a brief summary, before they invest any time in some nobody's vanity blog. :cool:
Abstract pop-up : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
BTW your pop-up is not working for me - Chrome browser on windows.
It works in Firefox and Edge, so I don't know what the problem is. Unlike an internet link, this page link doesn't change the place marker to a finger pointer. You just have to put the place marker over the text and click. I might try a "rollover" popup instead of a "click" to see if that will work in other browsers. The problem with that solution is the popup box disappears if you move the mouse. Anyway, here's the content of the popup ---
Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
[i]1. The Enformationism hypothesis aligns with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible physical energy or tangible matter, but the abstract meta-physical contents of a cosmic mind, or what we might now call : a universal “information processor”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality (bits & bytes) are no more mystical than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought (ideas) that we take for granted in our own personal neural information processor. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/. . . .xml
3. Axiom : Enformation (the power to enform) is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter, Energy & Mind are evolved forms of abstract, ethereal information encoded in the Primal Singularity.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, meta-physical Information Sciences.[/i]
Ooooh! That's quite a technical philosophical concept. But your summation is on target :
“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”
Yes. Art is a form of communication. And some older definitions of "art" emphasized how it conveys the feeling of beauty. Yet a lot of modern art is not intended to display beauty, but the ugliness of reality. So, I think you nailed-it, that what is communicated is how the artist views the world. This reminds me of the epigram -- attributed to Kant, The Talmud, among others -- "we see the world, not as it is, but as we are" :smile:
Yes thanks that worked. Still the text at the bottom of the pop up couldn't be read. The content seems spot on however. :up:
We are - an evolving process of self organization, so this is spot on - we see the world in terms of our self organization, Talmud- circa 200CE :chin:
Another similar observation : “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” — Hillel
Just for the record, I have revised the Thesis Abstract popup indicator so that it changes when you hover over it, to indicate that a click will cause an action. It doesn't turn blue, like a hyperlink, it merely fades, like a Cheshire Cat. :joke:
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
PS___In the Information-Consciousness-Reality book, I just came across a line, in his abstract of all chapters, that is relevant to your thesis : "Self-organization appears like a fundamental force guiding cosmic evolution". That's essentially what I call EnFormAction in my own thesis. He also has a chapter entitled : A Universe Built of Information , which is what the Enformationism thesis is all about.
If you are interested, there is a free PDF download available, and the Kindle version is Free on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Information-Consciousness-Reality&link_code=qs&qid=1614303194&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1&tag=mozilla-20
The earth’s core generates an electro magnetic force which passes through everything on the surface of the earth and extends for miles beyond the surface. This electro magnetic force protects the ozone layer from being stripped away by the solar wind, and it’s protective action is visible in the northern lights. Perhaps this electro magnetic force, passing through the grey matter in the skull, results in what we call consciousness, by the stimulation of neurones in the brain?
The most common form of life are single celled organisms. If anything, reason could be considered a dangerous thing to have: you either react quickly, or you die.
Something like you suggest is a very distinct possibility, in my opinion. There seems to be a mechanism that drives integrity, or order from the word go, and this is necessary for life to evolve. Some would say that the entropic principle within a cell is enough to drive life, but whilst this drives greater molecular complexity, there is no compulsion for the molecular complexity to become ordered and integrated - quite the opposite.
A force, or multiplicity of forces, of some sort seems to drive integrity in the universe - in the pockets that are ordered, and life seems to evolve due to it. The simplest way to put it is that the universe is self organizing, and life evolved from this, and consciousness is a form of self organization. But I can only speculate as to the cause ( forces ) of self organization. The Earth's magnetic field would have to be in place for the present form of life to evolve, so it plays a role, but integrity is present everywhere in the universe. Why is there integrity everywhere in the universe? I think you would ultimately have to say because the universe is biased to self organize, and to the best of my ability to analyze it, a bias is an emotion.
From this perspective a universe biased to self organize is acting very similarly to human consciousness, as described by phenomenology - where emotions ( as a force ) drive integrity, whilst perception is a disintegrative force ( perception disrupts an integrated state ).
Sorry for the late reply about the "Turing patterns".
I did not post on that topic, because it seems like the topic starter might not want to continue on that topic.
My theory about energy waves is different then that of Turing patterns.
From my point of view everything you : see, hear or touch is energy.
A rock ( something you can touch or an object that has mass) is still just another energy that function on a different wavelength, then the wavelength of sound, light or magnetic.
That's why i think the human cells or any other living cells are just energy interactions + the information that resulted from those interactions.
In systems and complexity theory, self organization begins with arbitrary fluctuations of energy. At least that is currently the deepest possible insight. What is brushed over is that these energetic fluctuations are in themselves self organizing ( they interact and integrate ). It seems they are self organizing from the outset? How would you explain their self organization? Tell me more please?
Energy on its own we know nothing about. But energy that has frequency or vibration is energy + information, in my understanding. A certain pattern of energetic frequency or vibration is symbolized in consciousness, perhaps by a neuron, but certainly by a concept, and then is related to other concepts or neurons - and that would be how consciousness occurs, as far as I can see. In this way, If we could strip away these anthropocentric concepts (symbols) all there would be left would be patterns of fluctuating and vibrating energy. Is this roughly what you mean?
:100: I think you are right! It leads to a string theory like paradigm. Not necessarily strings, but particles of energy in combination forming structure.
If we call them strings, then one string interacts with another string, and the interaction modulates the frequency of both strings such that a third, now combined and modulated string emerges. The resultant modulated string is symbolic of the initial interaction. That's how information is preserved. That’s how consciousness begins! Subsequently these symbols are again integrated through further interaction. That’s how self organization occurs! Ultimately this leads to a neural network type of situation where combination builds symbolic complexity, as material structure. Information is preserved in a creative emergent manner, and symbolized in the emergent form of the resulting strings.
** In such a paradigm, neurobiology is the process of converting energetic frequency and vibration to symbols ( pattern recognition ), and then relating the symbols. In the end, the symbols in combination create a big picture we call consciousness. Much like the pixels of a computer screen only in 3D.
Yes indeed, you wrote a very great description of the way energies mixed together to preserve information.And the relation with neurobiology.
:clap: :clap:
Also mixing multiple different energies for a lot of time ( thousands of years or more), they can transform and evolve into another type of energy which can keep a lot of more information then today.
You can say that is evolution as well.
Ex. when a very high magnet field produce electric current by itself.Or energies that can evolve and transform into another type of energy just by increasing their frequency.
Taking aside energies and thinking of "the need for sleep" of humans and animals.
Like what is the reason we sleep ? why you need to sleep ?
My answer to the above question is :
So we can keep the information we gather during the day.
So we wont overload with too much information, and destroy our organized cells.
Filing tired is a limit of the information that we can keep for that specific period of time, which then needs to be analyzed and stored by our cells during sleep.
We might need another chemical structure beside "water" to be able to store more information and live longer.
That will be another complex and interesting discussion.
How much information is more then enough or how much information humans or living cells can take without affecting the current ordered structure ?
You can take "information" by colliding with a car, but that wont be pleasant for us or the living cells inside us.
It would be nice to have medical instruments to measure this for us, to see "the amount of information" we already stored and maybe how much "space" i have left to store the incoming information.Some instruments are already there, but since we dont see it as a hole(as information) we might neglect them.
Grrr - :angry: Physics is not my strong point - I have a lot of catching up to do!
Quoting Adughep
This sounds reasonable. I was thinking sleep allows new structure to be built around consolidated information, which becomes physical structure somehow, such that it has new pathways to grow. The way you characterize it would seem to work also.
Quoting Adughep
Ok, I'm having another look at water memory and I have found this. Water memory is a very big deal. It would entail the recalibration of an awful lot of theory, so its no surprise it has met a lot of resistance. I'm open minded though, and I note a few people have found there is something to it, so will keep looking.
Quoting Adughep
Yes, this would be chaos ( too much energy / information) - no chance for information to self organize. Order is necessary.
The Dictionary definition of order is: the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method. So order is self organization. We recognize order by noticing a self organization occurring. And this can only occur in pockets of the universe that have the right energy states. In those states the energy starts ordering ( self organizing ).
The right information has to be present ( the right elements ) for the ordering to continue.
Quoting Adughep
Do you have some good references?
BTW, thanks for your information. I was thinking of energy as a substance and couldn't quite put it together, but upon thinking of it as particles ( wavicles ), due to your prompts, it just clicked. :up:
— Pop
What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not.
— @Wayfarer @Banno
If the current paradigm does not provide understanding, why support it? If things do no fit one way, I try a different way.There is no one reason that leads me to this way of thinking, but a number of reasons that converge to point to this. Unfortunately none of them would constitute an absolute logical proof, but I'll keep working on it. :smile: The below is an idea in principle that relates directly to your question. It requires an open mind.
1 Information and energy are fundamental
2. If information and energy are fundamental, then everything is made of information and energy.
3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness.
Assuming information and energy is fundamental, then the most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and modulation symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. The third wavicle is a symbol of the interaction of the two first wavicles. The information of the first two wavicles has been integrated and symbolized in the form of the third wavicle.
Information has been integrated to symbol.
This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol.
Consciousness integrates specifically this sort of information – information in the form of energetic frequency and vibration. Frequency and vibration in the form of light and sound hits the edge of a self. The self itself is fundamentally frequency and vibration, so two wavicles of sorts interact and modulate. The sensed frequency and vibrations are symbolized - pattern recognition style, where each pattern has its own symbol. The symbols are related and a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.
This fundamental interaction has the quality of consciousness – it integrates information to a symbol – there is no need for a consciousness to emerge, the information integrating function is already present. In time, It just evolves in complexity, and is able to integrate more and more information.
The problem I see is that 'information' is not 'a simple'. The word 'simple' has particular implications in this context - it means 'irreducible', 'can't be explained in terms of anything else' (ref. So, for materialism, matter is simple, or rather, can be explained in terms of simple particles, namely the atom (meaning 'indivisible particle', therefore 'has no parts'.) .
But 'information' has different meanings in different contexts. There literally is no such thing as information simpliciter. Yes, all living things are configured according to the information encoded in DNA, but even saying that doesn't cast any light on where that information originated or even what it is, apart from its embodied form. (For an explanation of the use of the term in biology, see What is information?).
So I am dubious at the way 'information' has been siezed upon in the last couple of decades as an 'explanation' or 'fundamental substance' - because it's not a substance, in the philosophical sense (where 'substance' is the 'bearer of attributes'). What information do you have in mind, when you say 'information'? If you just wave your hands around and say, 'well, information, generally', I'm afraid it doesn't mean anything.
Saying 'mind' is fundamental is much nearer the mark in my view, but it has to be framed appropriately.
That is exactly what energy is: an irreducible simple. We only have access to it by way of information. In the stated case: amplitude, frequency, charge, polarity, etc
Information is a fundamental simple - we only have access to anything by way of information, and the information reaches us by way of energetic frequency and vibration, to become vision and hearing.
We don't interact with things, we interact with the information we have of things. Information is the thing that links everything, or perhaps better put: everything that is linked can be thought of as being linked by information.
I guess this is the difference between realism and a more idealistic understanding. Information flow is really quite simple to understand if you are already idealistically inclined. I imagine your frustration is in part that an idealistic paradigm is being forced upon you?
Sorry, I don't think that works.
We have access to electrical energy, courtesy of the power grid.
What does 'access' mean?
the means or opportunity to approach or enter a place.
obtain or retrieve (computer data or a file).
So it's a metaphor from data science.
An irreducible simple is composed of no parts. Everything you're reading here is composed of parts, namely, letters, phrases, sentences and so on. It's not simple, and indeed only a human can meaningfully interpret it.
Quoting Pop
I'm not frustrated, I'm simply not agreeing. ;-) I'm one of the diehard idealists on this forum, but idealism comes in many flavours.
Get in touch with.
Quoting Wayfarer
Fair enough. :smile:
https://amzn.com/3030036316
I think it's the kind of understanding your into? (I might check it out, although I'm overloaded with reading right now.)
I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - @gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth.
Imo, things are relational, and the first relation is energy and information, so I'll leave it at that. :smile:
Yes, its uncanny how there is an intuition about it, but the articulation just falls short of explanation.
Throughout my life I have heard vague mutterings from various sources how everything is consciousness. I could never quite understand it, and I wondered what sort of magical thinking is required for such ideation. But as I explore it myself from various paradigms - Cartesian, materialist, Yogic, Idealist, scientific it all points to it. But to articulate it in such a way so there is broad understanding may be beyond me. It may be beyond anyone. It really requires an articulation that at the same time unifies all the paradigms. What could that possibly be? How can that possibly be? Perhaps it cannot be. :smile:
William James' book Varieties of Religious Experience was one source, and he was influenced by the New England Transcendentalists, Emerson and Thoreau, who in turn were influenced by Eastern sources, still quite newly discovered in their day.
And then there was the World Parliament of Religions, which followed the Chicago World Fair, in the 1880's, following which the charismatic Swami Vivekananda toured America for six months by railway, giving many lectures to packed halls.
The Vedanta Society set up shop in California in the 1920's. That had an influence on the 'new consciousness' movements, Christian Science, and so on (as did Theosophy.)
I think that's a part of the often-unstated background in talk about consciousness. Those Towards a Science of Consciousness conferences hosted by David Chalmers had a lot of those ideas in them. Deepak Chopra was always a feature.
Not everything mind you. I'd say 50% is worthwhile, and of that 5% is invaluable, but then some of the other stuff I can not buy into.
In the west of course, a study of consciousness would clash with the soul, so would have been a no go area. Hence we only have a recent tradition of it.
Its amusing to see academics so knowledgeable about so many things, yet not having much knowledge about consciousness at all - beyond conscious / unconscious. And then again who would dare solve the problem of consciousness? As we said before, you really can only solve it for a particular paradigm at best. Still I find its something I can get my teeth into. Its a very interesting and challenging problem. I often wish I had as much energy for practical matters. :smile:
The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.
Also, he insists on making his Metaphysical speculations compatible with the available scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that "things are relational" is compatible with Einstein's Relativity, even though that perspective has some counter-intuitive implications. He also quotes Carl Sagan : "Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality". But each person's acceptance or rejection of that assertion will depend on their subjective definition of "spirituality". That's why we have philosophical forums, to hash-out those clashing definitions. :smile:
. It's simple Mr. ...
. There is no theory about consciousness ... because ... if you have theories about something ... that ... so-called something won't be known at all ... cannot be known ... but rather ... it's theories ...
. Your knowledgeability ... expressed through theories, dogmas, doctrines ... are a way to deviate away from reality ... from that which is ...
. And ... that which is ... is ... in spite of ... your so-called theories about Life ...
. Drop all the abouts ... they're all nonsense ... drop all the theories ... and you'll have and know Life ... you'll know the unknowable ... more than having ... you'll be Life ... on it's totality ...
. Philosophers have theories about Life ... but ... they don't have Life ... their knowing about Life is just like the knowing of a blind Man about Light ...
. You cannot have any theory about Life ... you can live it ... intensly ... lovingly ...
. Put the question ... rather ... on this way - "What is the source of consciousness?" ...
. Consciousness is the source of all. Consciousness is the stuff existence is made of. But there is no source of consciousness itself. Consciousness is another name of God – a better name, more scientific, less mythological.
. People like Gautam Buddha, who had a greater clarity than anybody else ever had, say that bringing God in is in itself absurd. Existence has always been here. Nobody has created it, and nobody can destroy it. But that does not mean that Gautam Buddha is an atheist. It simply means he has a more scientific and less mythological approach.
. He says existence consists of consciousness. Existence itself is made of consciousness. And consciousness has always been here, is here, will be here. It can be asleep, it can be awake, but it is consciousness all the same.
. When it is asleep you work blindly, unconsciously. When it becomes awake you are enlightened.
. But there is no source of consciousness.
. Consciousness itself is the very foundation of the whole existence. Nothing is deeper than that. You cannot go beyond consciousness.
What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.
Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—
As the distinctions toward survival,
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.
The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;
Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or’s the brain’s private symbolic language.
The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious parts know not what’s being made.
…
Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He.
Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be". :cool:
I thought metaphysics was the science of the conditions of possibility of ‘what can be’. As such it includes within itself things and concepts.
It was just an idea, that i had. Thinking about water that can store "information", why not have another substance that can do the same thing ?
For me is very simple to understand what "information" is.
I am not talking only about biological or some specific area.
Let's say two things (A and B) that interacts and the result of interaction does not destroys A or B.
The result of the interaction that is stored in A or B(or both), i called it "information" .
I will try to explain it with real life examples :
Ex.: 1.If you go to the gym for 30 days and your arm muscle grows. The result of lifting the heave weight against the earth gravitation that is stored on your muscle is called "information" .
2.You reading this post with your eye and remembering some words next day after your away from the computer is "information".
3.Saving a file on your computer hard disk, that you can open next week for review is also "information"
The third example is not biological, as i tried to have at least non biological example.
Any interactions between two energies that does not destroy each other, but still store "marks" of the interactions is called " information" .
If the interactions destroy both energies, then there is no "information" and nothing is stored.
If only one energy is destroyed, then only the energy that remains have the "information" of the interaction.
Of course if you look deep at how those interactions where made and why one energy is destroyed and the other not it will make things much more complex. This is the same for multiple point of views science, physical or biological.
In my opinion to the universe this does not matter, only the end result matters. If you can store is ok, if not you will go back to "the beginnings".
I believe Pop made a good definition of how "information" is preserved to sustain ordered and complex cells or complex material structures(it does not need always to be a living cell).
Consciousness is a special kind of memory. It is memory, because it is not possible to have a conscious experience in only an instant (in the sense of a spatial point). There is no consciousness without temporal extension. Indeed, anything that “exists” without temporal extension (duration), however brief, simply does not exist. So that, any action of the body, conscious or unconscious, is possible because of memory
But, what is the special kind of memory that makes the actions of the body what we call “consciously made”? Unconscious actions, such as reflex action and so-called muscle memory, we know are not consciously made. But, what exactly does this mean? Simply put, it means that these actions occur “automatically” (without the intercession of consciousness).
Yet, we know that we can consciously dictate our bodily actions. This we call the will. We also know that without consciousness, there can be no will [simply because we cannot make a decision of any kind unless we are conscious].
Thus, we may be confident in saying that it is consciousness that makes the will possible. We may say further that consciousness was naturally selected to allow the exercise of the will. The latter gives us the capability to do one thing and not another when we have the power to do either. We can weigh the alternatives and plan our actions. Who can deny that such a thing has great evolutionary value? Indeed, it has allowed us to dominate the earth.
It does not define consciousness to declare that it is “irreducibly subjective,” for this means only “self-centered.” [Not in the sense of selfish but rather in the sense of self-generated.] Thus, for example, the actions of a cockroach are subjective, in the sense that they are generated by its own nervous system and not that of any other cockroach--even though we know are all such insects are fundamentally similar. However, their similarity does not prevent them from acting individually.
In humans, subjectivity means essentially the same. The conscious experiences of any particular person are limited to the spatial extent of the brain. Thus, those experiences are private in the sense that they are not directly accessible by others. However, this state of affairs reveals a feature of consciousness [subjectivity] but does not explain exactly what it is. Indeed, such a thing is impossible.
One cannot give an objective account of consciousness; for any such account can only be expressed and understood through language. Yet consciousness in presumed in all linguistic intercourse. In other words, individuals cannot communicate through language without being conscious in the first place. One cannot give a meaningful account of a thing necessarily presumed in the explanation itself.
One can only know consciousness by experiencing it, and one can speak of consciousness only to those who are conscious. In such case, the use of the expression, “conscious,” is meaningful to all, because all have experienced it. One cannot, for example, express consciousness to a computer; for this device is not conscious and experiences nothing.
Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).
So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be". Plato is best known for his dialogues about the non-physical aspects of the world : most famously, the concept of such logically possible notions as "Ideal Forms", as contrasted with Real Objects. Those perfect patterns don't exist in a real sense, but we can recognize their incomplete logical structure in real things that fall short of seemingly impossible perfection. We never see Ideal things with our senses, but we know them with our reasoning ability, regarding what seems "possible" given what's "actual". :smile:
I am more familiar with Kant than with Plato. Would you agree that for Kant the the physical exists but is unknowable in itself , the mental exists in itself but is empty without sensations from the world ('concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind‘). So Kant’s metaphysics shows us that the physical is an ideal , not an actuality. It is an ideal in a different sense than the mathematical concept of zero, yet still an ideal. Therefore his metaphysics is showing us that ‘what is’ ( both as fantasized concept and as physical ) is the product of an indissociable interaction between external reality in itself and subjective mental process.
I disagree slightly with your interpretation of Kant. It is true that he held that ”the physical exists but is unknowable in itself,” as you put it. However, to him, physical things were empirical realities and not ideals.
The percepts arising from encounters with such realities, on the other hand, did not exist outside of the mind and accordingly could be called “ideal.”
Kant insisted that the percepts in no way resembled the realities. He did not maintain that real things caused the percepts; for if they did, they would reveal some aspect of those realities. Instead, Kant argued that the percepts arose from encounters with real things in such a way that they in no way resembled real things. Further, Kant had maintained that causation was a thing of the mind that represented nothing real in itself.
Thus, the percept and the real thing were completely separable. The latter would exist without the former, but the former would not exist without the latter. None of this makes a great deal of sense to me, and I am not alone in this. Many have questioned the validity of Kant’s aesthetic.
Kant also denied that time and space, (and therefore motion and change) were real in themselves. To him they were pure creations of the mind.
Kant argued that thought was not at all as it seemed. Our experience of time is based upon the impression that one thought follows another. However, Kant argued that thought was in reality a perfection wherein all thinking was unified without any unfolding of successive thoughts. This explanation is hard to swallow. Apparently, Kant painted himself into this corner, because there seemed no other way to deny the reality of time.
I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.
As you noted, our mental Concepts are mostly based on our physical Percepts. Our mental worldview is constructed from basic elements of perception and sensation. But we also create abstractions that bear little resemblance to concrete Reality. Yet, I can't imagine a mind that is completely disconnected from the physical world. And yet, it's true that our self-created conceptual worldview (e.g. Surreal Art) can mix & match the elements of mundane Reality into bizarre unreal forms. For example, Psychonauts, who experiment with drugs (opening the Doors of Perception), claim to experience a "higher" mental or spiritual realm divorced from reality, where the body & ego don't exist. Personally, I have had no such subjective experience. So, I have to take their word for it . Such noumenal "sensations" are completely foreign to my own drug-free mundane reality.
That said though, as a way to scientifically conceptualize the distinction between our Percepts and Concepts, I like the metaphor of an "Interface Reality" used by Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny that there is something "out there" for our senses to perceive. But like Kant, he concludes that our personal conception of that underlying Reality is a simplified symbolic abstraction of "what-is". :cool:
Interface : Window to Reality :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Both/And Principle :
[i]* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Ideality :
[i]In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
We currently have the internet, which has led to a quantum shift in my understanding, but you are probably thinking about something like Neuralink?
Water memory would fit beautifully, but there is so little supporting research. :rage: And then a Helix copies its double! So its still a physical memory at the cellular level.
Today we can imagine an energetic reality ( E=mc2, and Rutherford's experiments ). When we imagine such a reality we mustn't forget that everything including us is made of an energetic stuff. We receive information of this stuff via energetic frequencies and vibrations that we call sight and sound. So it would seem we are well oriented in an energetic reality in that an energetic person receives energetic signals from an energetic external world. It would seem to be a one to one connection, a like with like entanglement. So a real relationship.
Where the dissonance occurs is in the translation of energetic frequency and vibration to anthropocentric symbols of sight and sound, etc. What seems to occur is that frequencies are recognized and symbolized, say to a color, or a sound, pattern recognition style. Suppose each pattern/ frequency has its own symbol, and suppose each symbol has its own neuron, once all the neurons are related then a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.
Now if we shut our eyes and ears so no more frequency and vibration is sensed, the symbols still remain in our neurons and continue to be variously related without any external input. This relationship we understand as mind. Of course it contains symbols of all sorts of things, not just frequencies of light (sight ), and vibrations ( sound ), but all sorts of biologically created, and culturally derived symbols / concepts.
But, if we accept that matter is energetic, is this absolute reality? No, because we do not know what the ingredients that make up energy are. And when we find that out, we wont know what the ingredients that make up the ingredients are, and so on an on. So If this is what Kant was saying then he is correct , we cannot get in touch with reality absolutely. The best we can do is symbolize it meaningfully at any level, and that is what we have done. :smile: Hope this helps.
Well argued and welcome to the forum. :up:
I think we have reached the stage of beating a dead horse. However, I will make just a few more observations, first as to Kant’s ontology:
1. Kant considered reality to consist of material things (noumena) [note the plural]. He denied that he was an idealist, calling himself instead an empirical realist. His sole claim to that title lay in his belief that reality consisted of material things that were real in there own right.
Kant contrasted himself with Berkeley who denied the reality of matter and believed that the real world consisted of souls.
[Plato states in the Dialogues what he claimed were the ontology and epistemology of Socrates. We will take it that they were in fact Plato’s own views and set them down hereinafter in simplified and abbreviated form.
The ultimate reality consists of a world of ideals or “forms” These are generalities, like the good and the beautiful, as well as the axioms of geometry. They have a discrete realty independent of the human mind, and are outside of time and space, unchanging, eternal and without weight and size. They are perfections and not sense impressions, for the latter give us only “shadows” of the real world, the world of ideals. Thus, the latter is not accessible to us by way of the senses. The ideals can only be understood by the use of pure reason.]
Kant’s epistemology can properly be called antirealist. He argued that the nature of material things real in themselves was completely inaccessible to us. When the senses, principally sight, encountered such a thing, the perception of it was conditioned in the mind by intuitions such as time, space and causation. Although this process yielded a percept sensible to us, it did not re-present the thing as it was in itself. Thus, Kant denied us any window to reality.
Kant maintained that time, space and causation were not things real in themselves, nor were they conditions of things real in themselves. They were real to us because of the particular way the human mind deals with reality. Thus, the world that we experience is not the real world but a world of our own making.
Hello all, seems there is few activity in the last month.
Hope everyone is well.
Here is a web page where human consciousness is linked to quantum physics( energy interactions ) https://www.sciencealert.com/is-consciousness-bound-by-quantum-physics-we-re-getting-closer-to-finding-out
Matter is just a stage phase result of those multiple energy interactions.Those energy interactions in depth had a mixture of quantum states to create the matter as we perceive it today with our senses.
Stage 1 - very high energy interactions with very big dimensions like galaxy interactions (this is just the first phase i could imagine after Big bang, lets say this could have created black holes)
Stage 2 - high energy interactions that created the Higgs boson particle and other quantum particles ( energy levels similar to black holes )
Stage 3 - energy interactions from a billion or more quantum particles that created the matter
Stage 4 - matter energy interactions which created consciousness
You can try to change the order if you feel like or maybe add more stages in between .
Hope is more clear now that matter is not the first and not the last step of evolution.
Consciousness that we see now is just the result from those interactions. This result you call it "matter" or mixture of quantum states.
Yes we are still talking about an energetic particle, but it has been entangled to form. Consciousness has many forms. It is about information processing. Needs to memorize information to a stable form. We have been talking about this in the "what is information" thread. your views would be appreciated?
Yes i said this, so you wont see matter as something special or something that is required to create Consciousness.
I am glad that we are on the same page :) .
Quoting Pop
I don't believe is random and probabilistic. It has form, but that form last only couple of nanoseconds in our time(other call this quantum entanglement). In quantum world time it can be days or maybe more.
For now we don't have the devices to measure it and see which physics laws are working there.
If you flip a coin and you just look elsewhere when you toss it, it will look for you random and probabilistic.
If you measure the force applied to the toss and using a special device you can try to reproduce the same force on the toss to the coin , then it wont look random anymore :).It will be very difficult to do this by hand only as small variations on the force can produce different results.
The same is happening on quantum world, if something is so small that only my breath can affect the results that i cant measure it, so will look random to me.
You can read this article https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-hole-paradoxes-reveal-a-fundamental-link-between-energy-and-order-20200528/
Quoting Pop
Yes i agree with this.
To add just a simple definition, i believe Consciousness = is the information exchange in an ordered state from energy interactions.
How about, an ordered state has form, and information **is the interaction of form.
Information is the interaction of form in systems, and information is the interaction of form between systems. Seems like a definition of information to me: Information is the evolutionary interaction of form. - What do you think?
Quoting Adughep
When we interact with it we change it - there is the problem of the informational link. If you agree with the definition of information above, then you will see we can only interact with something that has form. We cannot interact with something that does not have form.
I'm very into information at the moment. This is something I can work with and describe logically.
There is little I can do with QM, but Enrique is into quantum consciousness.
Yes you are correct.You can say that only an ordered state "can be" and "is" a form. And interactions are possible only between forms.
I agree with your statements about information. :clap:
For me they have good logic, i am not sure if you can describe them in a better logical or simpler way.
Maybe if you compare this logic to some of real life examples ? (this might complicate things or simplify them depending of the person and the examples )
I will read and watch the information thread.
You would be a good asset in discussions of the mass - energy - information equivalence principle, since you already have this insight. It seems to me, information is the way of the future. It leads to a theory of everything as evolving informational bodies, and we can be certain of this since we need an informational body about something in order to be able to understand it. So I hope you do join the conversation. The definition of information thread is fizzling out now, but I will make something new soon, and I hope to hear your views there. :smile:
Looks like they need a couple of real examples in the information definition thread.
I will try to post one or two real examples in that thread and i hope it wont confuse people more.