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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

excellent but first i'll have to change my username to tokinoutmi-arse and you to popcorn.

Do you have an argument or are you just

tokinoutmi-arse — Tres Bien

I don't know.

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: — Pop

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:

Thanks for your input, the rich background knowledge, and particularly the "pocket of order".
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:

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. — Pop

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

My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop

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

My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop

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

Your theory preserves the status quo. I'm not interested in that. I think it is destructive and unsustainable. You affirm the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality, whereas I am trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality.

↪Gnomon
Your theory preserves the status quo. I'm not interested in that. I think it is destructive and unsustainable. You affirm the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality, whereas I am trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality. — Pop

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.

No offence intended. :smile:

↪Gnomon
No offence intended. :smile: — Pop

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 think you should do an article on "enformation" for the TPF. Just something short and basic, that facilitates a quick grasp of the idea.

↪Gnomon
I think you should do an article on "enformation" for the TPF. Just something short and basic, that facilitates a quick grasp of the idea. — Pop

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 : How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence
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

complex adaptive systems ". And expanded Information Theory is at the core of Complexity & Adaptation (self-organization). — Gnomon

Yes, a complex adaptive system is what consciousness is. :smile:

What do you think? Is it too long for an article? :worry: — 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.

I'm just beginning to read a long, complex book written by a professional Complexity theorist, who started as a Physicist. — 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.

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? — Pop

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
"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 wont allow myself to read other peoples interpretation, until my own is fully formed — 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 : How A New Understanding of the Universe Can Help
Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence. The author equates Information with Consciousness and Reality. Which is basically what my own thesis does.

Life is about survival. — Relativist

Sounds very limited and boring. Try taking an art class or dance class and enjoy life!

I like the new website. :up:

Unfortunately, it refers to cutting-edge scientific concepts that most posters may not be familiar with — 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.

I emphasize the term Information in order to show that Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter." — Gnomon

:up: - entirely the same kind of stuff, just much more complex.

"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. — Gnomon

I agree, the way I like to put it is that information gives form to things.

↪Gnomon
I like the new website. :up: — Pop

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:

- entirely the same kind of stuff, just much more complex. — 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:

It will be the next post on my blog, but I may adapt it for an article on this forum. — Gnomon

Ill look forward to it. :up:

"complexity science invites a systemic and holistic paradigm . . . . and a bottom-up approach to the understanding of reality". — Gnomon

"Real World complexity (from inanimate self-organizing structure formation to emergent phenomena like life and consciousness) . . . " (my emphasis) :smile: — 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?

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? — Pop

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 :
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

THROWING CHI

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? — deletedmemberTB

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.

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? — 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.

It will be the next post on my blog, but I may adapt it for an article on this forum. — Gnomon
Ill look forward to it. :up: — Pop

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

Could you provide a link please?

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. — Paul S

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

↪Gnomon
Could you provide a link please? — Pop

Sorry. Here it is : :yikes:

Intro to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html