We don't have a universally accepted theory of emotions. What they are has been interpreted in various ways. I see them as a force like quality that we feel - this feeling provides impetus to self organize. In my understanding consciousness = self organization. — Pop

Organizing is an aspect of the Mind's intention to create. Organization itself is insufficient to explain creative evolution. All aspects of the Mind, including emotions, are imbued in the creative effort.

Organizing is an aspect of the Mind's intention to create — MondoR

I think you need to tidy this up a little. Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information.

I think you need to tidy this up a little. Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information. — Pop

First there is crude experimentation and then information (Memory) is slowly corrected. Similar to a baby playing with some toy blocks.

The fundamental thing, "before anything can happen" is that information needs to be integrated, from that integrated information a thought to experiment might arise.

The thing that is integrated is information. This leads to an experiment being performed, this creates more information that is integrated, which leads to more experiments, and so on.

The thing that is integrated is information. This leads to an experiment being performed, this creates more information that is integrated, which leads to more experiments, and so on. — Pop

To "begin" it is only necessary to create movement (an impetus) and observe the results of the movement. Information (Memory) is then collected. There is no information until there is the first movement and observation (of itself).

To "begin" it is only necessary to create movement — MondoR

Yes, but where can that possibly come from other than integrated information?

The first information is provided by sense data .

There is no information until there is the first movement and observation (of itself). — MondoR

This is incorrect. You need a cause for the first movement, and the only one at your disposal is integrated information.

This is incorrect. You need a cause for the first movement, and the only one at your disposal is integrated information — Pop

There is no cause. It all begins with Mind moving urged on by a creative impetus. It observes its movements and begins to create. There is no information until the first observation and collection of memory.

I give up.

WTF.

Is something coming from nothing any more absurd than something existing forever? — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, because something existing forever still reduces down to no explanation for why it exists forever. But you seem to understand this. Basically if existence was infinite vs finite, we would still seek an answer for why it was infinite vs. finite. But if there is nothing prior to the finite or infinite, the answer remains, "It just is."

I think that you raise an important point about the nature of existence, the temporary and existence as being "forever'. This is where the nature of time comes into play, as well as the way in which our existence is dependent on categories, especially time and space. It does appear to me that existence is dependent on such categories of observations, and probably only makes sense in material terms. But, I am sure that some people may conceive of existence in other ways, but this is probably a metaphysics which is developed in abstract ways, and I think that it would be open to the most critical forms of philosophical scrutiny.

I think that the nature of information is extremely interesting, but one aspect of this which I have been aware of related to it during to it the idea of noise, as discussed in a recent book by Daniel Kahneman et al, called, 'Noise'. I have only read about it and looked at the book casually in a bookshop, but it does indicate that our understanding of life is within a background of general noise, often as a form of hindrance. So, I believe that we need to acknowledge this, as a basis for trying to gain the clearest and best possible understandings, including metaphysical and scientific knowledge. In other words, how do we filter and sort the most accurate information available for our understanding?

How can we explain the existence and development of life at all? — Jack Cummins

Good question. I think that intelligence might be the key to the answer. Living beings distinguish themselves from inanimate objects through the fact that they possess intelligence, and humans distinguish themselves from other living beings through possessing a higher intelligence than others.

The existence of a hierarchy of intelligences from the most rudimentary to the most advanced not only raises the possibility that there are intelligences that are higher than ours, but also that the universe is designed to either create intelligence or to manifest intelligence, in other words the universe and what we call life may have an intelligent cause.

I think that, as intelligent beings, our first and foremost belief should be in intelligence, that is, in that within us that defines us as intelligent beings. However, because, as stated above, there is a possibility if not probability that the universe has an intelligent cause, it stands to reason for us as intelligences to try to find out what that cause is. This is what scientific research already does in its own way and there is no reason why we shouldn’t do our own research into intelligence, i.e., into who or what we are.

Intelligence goes hand in hand with knowledge or information. Restricting knowledge or information would amount to restricting intelligence, i.e., restricting ourselves, which would be contrary to what we are as intelligent beings. Therefore, there should be no limit to acquiring knowledge or expanding our intelligence and this is why there should be no limit to philosophical inquiry into metaphysical realities or the ultimate cause of all things.

Being “too curious” may well be a symptom of psychological disorder or lead to one. And there is no doubt that certain conditions involve excessive curiosity, trying to see or read meaning into everything, etc. But this is exactly why we are equipped with reason. Reason is our safety cord that keeps us attached to reality so that we don’t lose our way on our intellectual and spiritual journeys and that prevents us from ending up somewhere from where there is no return to reality, or where we don't want to be.

Therefore, intelligence should be subject to no restrictions other than itself in the form of reason, which is also the filter through which we assess information and determine which direction the expansion of our intelligence should take.

[...] information [...] information [...] information [...] information [...] — Pop

Hypostatization extraordinaire?

Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information. — Pop

Isnt organization anticipative? And if so, doesn’t that make it intentionally oriented?
Therex are mathematical definitions of information , like Shannon’s. Is that what you have in mind in your use of the word?

The heroics of order overcoming disorder continue on, through record droughts and extreme heat domes…

I think that the nature of information is extremely interesting, but one aspect of this which I have been aware of related to it during to it the idea of noise, as discussed in a recent book by Daniel Kahneman et al, called, 'Noise'. I have only read about it and looked at the book casually in a bookshop, but it does indicate that our understanding of life is within a background of general noise, often as a form of hindrance. — Jack Cummins

There is lots of noise, but when we focus on one aspect of it, it becomes a signal. Then, when we refocus to another aspect of it, the original signal becomes noise.

All noise is a potential signal. The spectrum of light is very broad, but normally we focus on a narrow range of it.

[...] information [...] information [...] information [...] information [...]
— Pop

Hypostatization extraordinaire? — jorndoe

This is a very broad accusation. I think for it to be meaningful, you would have to provide an example, and then we could work through the details.

Isnt organization anticipative? And if so, doesn’t that make it intentionally oriented?
Therex are mathematical definitions of information , like Shannon’s. Is that what you have in mind in your use of the word? — Joshs

Self organization, as you would be aware, is complicated - it achieves a number of functions. It allows a self to navigate the world, and in the process creates a self. Consciousness is anticipative, but how can one anticipate anything without a body of integrated information? Before any sort of intention can form, a body of integrated information must exist. After all, it is this body of integrated information that interacts with external information.

A self is information about the way information has organized itself. :smile: Initially DNA data would provide a body of information, and then senses stream in environmental information, the body of information integrates the sense data and out of this forms an intention ( constructivist style ). In the big picture, what is happening is that information is accumulating information onto itself, and growing in the process.

Shannon information theory is very focused and restricted to communicated information in technological / industrial settings. He says so himself in a quote that I can not find. :grimace: I use the term in it's broadest possible sense. Inform - to give form to a substance. Hence the patterns of a substance is information. Hence everything is information. There are pros and cons to this. The Zeilinger paper below acknowledges the primacy of information.

Quantum Information and Randomness Johannes Kofler and Anton Zeilinger

The heroics of order overcoming disorder continue on, through record droughts and extreme heat domes… — PoeticUniverse

The print in this experimental post composed of jpgs came out fuzzy.

Here it is in a PDF:https://austintorn.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/times-blast-8.5x11-300-dpi.pdf

Another great poem, and picture. I thank you for making the thread so lively and decorative.

forever — Philosophim

The problem with the understanding lies in the conceptualization of Time. Time or rather Duration is the instantiation of Memory, not a space/time block. Basically, we confuse clock time with them real Duration of life. There is no beginning of end, just Change. You can never understand the nature of Nature (Life) by using logic or science.

give up. — Pop

You are thrashing around in information because you are probably trying to be scientific. Information is a byproduct of Mind. Creativity is its essence.

information — Pop

The Final Answer to Everything

Wild theories?

Nobody Nowhere, at first, shows that Absolutes cannot be, and then this presentation morphs into Gavin Giorbran’s showing of the confluence of grouping order versus symmetry order.





PDF: https://austintorn.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/finalanswer-11x8.5-150-dpi.pdf

Because we have no access to absolutes, we must develop a relativistic understanding. :up: How fortunate this coincides with the minimum condition necessary for a state of integrated information ( consciousness ) - the relating of one thing to another,.

So, the relationship of one symbol to another is the minimum condition of consciousness ( start ), but there would seem to be no maximum condition of consciousness ( finish ) , that I can conceive at least. So IT looks like a process of accumulating information. It starts with the relationship of one thing to another and then continues to evolve, seemingly without end.

I have found some degree of understanding by treating all information as a single substance creating all structure, physical and mental - like Chalmers. This provides a simple picture of an energetic paradigm where information and energy ( electromagnetism ) cause structure. The structure builds for a time and then collapses, only to start rebuilding again, whilst living structure has found a way to continue the information, through life, for now at least. Whilst the most complex living structure has found ways preserve their information (aspects of themselves) through the things that they make. Which you are doing. :up:

I think your animated work is the strongest. How long did the "Vault of Everything" take to make?

How long did the "Vault of Everything" take to make? — Pop

Well, some of it was a long time ago, in the cruder days of video, but it probably took a month.

I think your animated work is the strongest — Pop

What if the characters in book images could come alive and move and talk…?

I told someone looking at an illustrated book that this could be done, asking her to focus more closely.

She said, "they're not moving."

I picked up the book and moved it back and forth through the air.

"See, they're moving now."

"Ha-ha, but they're not talking."

"Put your ear really close to the page and you will hear them."

"I think I heard something."

:clap: I Googled your name, and I see you are not new to this. Well done. :up:

Because we have no access to absolutes, we must develop a relativistic understanding. :up: How fortunate this coincides with the minimum condition necessary for a state of integrated information ( consciousness ) - the relating of one thing to another,. — Pop

In his new book, 'Helgoland…', about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only 'properties' in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by 'emptiness' in Buddhism.

Everything is 'quantum entangled' with everything, the 'things' more properly described as interactions and events.

Further, there are no fundamental substances, absolutes, no outside of Everything or bird's-eye view, no eternal basis, no 'God', etc. that is, there is no foundation of any kind to what goes on. 'Impermanance' goes all the way through…

This realization of Impermanence', 'No Absolutes' and 'Emptiness' is 'Nirvana'.

The quest is ended.

The quest is ended. — PoeticUniverse

If the quest is ended - What now? :lol:

Now we can make art with some certainty?

I would like to rephrase your question and say so - if we accept the theory of evolution and say that God and everything sacred is dead and there is only natural selection, why? why did natural selection come from? out of nothing? this question to which more than one evolutionist did not give me an answer, it essentially simply exists, and our humanity essentially only exists and everything, except for our presence, we cannot say anything, especially in the current paradigm of postmodernity when reality as such and any God, any myth is identical to our world, we can only accept our ignorance

If the quest is ended - What now? :lol: — Pop

:100:

Make love not philosophy! :lol:

I think that is very sensible. But I find there are still things I don't quite understand, and would like to resolve further. Once this ball starts rolling it is difficult to stop.

I thought you might say: "we can be certain there is no certainty!" :lol: