Well done! This is always an issue, you just can not trust anything without examining it in great detail yourself. :sad: I think the logic of a time of interaction and processing before determination to a point of consciousness seems right. Of course, an interaction where one thing is distinct against another may also explain it - is this what you are thinking?

is this what you are thinking? — Pop

I'm thinking our ingrained definitions shouldn't override things that are primary. Or, another way, our definitions should be based on what is primary.

Yes, I think the Information philosopher's definition is the obvious one - to inform - to literally change the shape of. This is what information does in systems theory physically. As @Gnomon says -"The original referent, of the verb "to inform", was to the invisible & intangible contents of a human mind". I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. So information has the power to physically shape us.

This meaning of the word information, has dropped out of common usage, it seems. As has the term Cybernatics.

I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. — Pop

Yes. The physical "correlates" are visible & tangible. But what does the "meaning" look & feel like? Generic Information takes many different forms, some physical and some metaphysical (mental). I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. That's not woo-talk though, because Energy is the same. No-one has ever seen Energy, they only see its Effects on Matter. For example, light rays traveling in dark empty space are invisible, and only become visible when they interact with the chemical Rhodopsin in the eye, thence conveyed to the "neural correlates". If a spacewalker is looking perpendicular to the beam of photons, he will see nothing. Only by putting his eyes directly in the path of the ray does he "see the light".

BTW, I finally got the Patternicity image for my previous post. It's an illustration of the distinction between random background information, and ordered meaningful foreground information. My browser was getting 404 and 403 errors, and it took a long time to realize that the browser was at fault. Fortunately there was an alternative. Like many-faceted information, there's more than one way to "skin a cat" (local idiom). :joke:


Information philosophy considers a material object as an "information structure," from which the immaterial information can be abstracted as meaningful knowledge.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/

I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. — Gnomon

I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. I respect your interpretation, although I do not agree with it myself, but I don't think we are people who would let a little disagreement like that stand between us. :smile:

:up: Yeah the pattern really illustrates how something might become distinct.

Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why?

When I said: I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information I meant that I have no problem to call it information, the structure or form we perceive in an object. I would not recommend it, as it leads to confusion.

So let´s call distinctions of whatever kind we make on objects structure or form.

If this structure is recorded directly or indirectly (e.g. because of a detour via measuring instruments) by sensory cells, I suggest the term perception.

For all the processes that perception goes through on its way, before it is integrated into a complex image with which it occures on the surface of our conciousness, I suggest the trem information.
Thus what is meant with my term is the position, perhaps the number or sequence of neurons that have to be activated in order to create a conciously perceptible image of (supposed) reality.

For the concious state I suggest the word knowledge.

When you see and recognize somebody or something, the information of this process exists only in the position , number and sequence of neurons activated. Is the network damaged or its cells become ill, the information disappears. But that doesn´t mean that the object itselfe had lost its structure.

What I have not understood yet: Do you believe that we influence (In what way ever) the structure of an object when we perceive it and process this perception as information in the way mentioned above?

When I said: I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information I meant that I have no problem to call it information, the structure or form we perceive in an object. I would not recommend it, as it leads to confusion. — Mersi

What do you mean by matter and information being equivalent? What aspects of matter and information have equal values? You refer to entropy and the states of matter?

I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. — Pop

Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties (color, size, density). Energy was originally defined as the "ability" or "capacity" to do work, or to cause change in physical things. But Ability and Capacity are qualitative potentials, that have no Actual quantitative substance. However, in a philosophical (metaphysical) sense, Information is the "substance" (i.e. essence ; form) of reality. Aristotle was more of a "realist" than Plato, whose Ideal Forms existed in a non-physical Potential state, until realized into physical Actual things. Of course, that's an abstract philosophical distinction, which may not appeal to some folks.

Even Aristotle made a distinction between "universal" forms and "specific" things. So, his notion of Essential Substance is essentially the same as Plato's Ideal Forms. Philosophically, Universals are Holistic, while Individuals are Particular. Our five senses perceive Individuals, while only the sixth sense of Reason can detect Universals (commonalities, inter-relationships). Such distinctions have been controversial between philosophers even before Plato and Aristotle. That's because only Particulars are Real (empirical ; objective ; quanta ; photons), while Universals are Ideal (debatable ; subjective ; qualia ; redness).

Personally, I resolve such either/or debates with my BothAnd principle. So, you could call me a Pragmatic Idealist. For me, Information exists in both physical and meta-physical forms. :smile:

Ideal Forms are Universal :
Aristotle distinguishes between “substantial” and “accidental” forms. A substantial form is a second substance (species or kind) considered as a universal . . . . Matter, not form, is the principle of individuation.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called “particulars”), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. . . . Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed. Conceptualists explain similarity among individuals by appealing to general concepts or ideas, things that exist only in minds. Nominalists, in contrast, are content to leave relations of qualitative resemblance brute and ungrounded.
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/

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

Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why? — Pop

Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. But, like computers themselves, that notion has become commonplace, and hence has lost its novelty, but not its utility. :nerd:

Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties — Gnomon

I don't agree. The electron and proton in formation have a physical effect. Energy has detectable properties. The frequency of a photon can be measured. Gravitons curve spacetime.

Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. — Gnomon

Yes, after some research, it was a very broad interdisciplinary approach - that swarmed around the control of systems, which seems to have led to the concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things.

As I study information in the sense that it informs ( shapes ) its potential power is growing in my mind.

What I have not understood yet: Do you believe that we influence (In what way ever) the structure of an object when we perceive it and process this perception as information in the way mentioned above? — Mersi

Yes, imo. This is the Enactivist view: that information from the world acts on us, and we in turn act on the world, and what is resolved is an amalgam of the two. We get a sense of this by understanding that colour does not exist in the external world, according to science.

As I study information in the sense that it informs ( shapes ) its potential power is growing in my mind. — Pop

Information in the sense that it informs? What's the driving force of the sellf organizing structures? How do the patterns on insects or tigers, or giraffes come about? What makes them different? How do the wings of a butterfly and the figures on it come about? Is it a coincidence that some patterns have skull shapes? How does the body of the chameleon change color?

It's not that we form mental images of objects and that we don't have access to the objects themselves. That's a kind of logical empiricism that would make my loved ones very unreal indeed. The situation can be compared with that of math in physics. The "shut up and calculate" attitude says that we will never know the objects an Sich. But the math is merely descriptive. It describes some objective properties. Math is merely a mental construction that we project upon the physical universe. The formalist approach is untennable. The intuitive approach bears fruit.

Information in the sense that it informs? What's the driving force of the sellf organizing structures? How do the patterns on insects or tigers, or giraffes come about? What makes them different? How do the wings of a butterfly and the figures on it come about? Is it a coincidence that some patterns have skull shapes? How does the body of the chameleon change color? — Platoon

Turing patterns are fascinating. What is the source of self organization - that is the 64billion dollar question - now billions due to inflation. :lol:

Turing patterns are fascinating. What is the source of self organization - that is the 64billion dollar question - now billions due to inflation. :lol: — Pop

Source: initial configurations.

I don't agree. The electron and proton in formation have a physical effect. Energy has detectable properties. The frequency of a photon can be measured. Gravitons curve spacetime. — Rstotalloss

I agree with your first statement. But not with the second. Can you give an example of an Energy "property" that is not known by its secondary "effect" on matter? Effects are caused by an outside force. But Properties are inherent in the object observed.

One Effect of light energy is Color, but color is not intrinsic to photons -- it is a noumenon in the mind of the observer, and is mediated by the structure of the physical object. It takes two to make an observable, measurable property : energy plus matter.

So, Electrons, Protons, and Information have physical effects, but noumenal (metaphysical ; mental) Information has no physical properties : it's colorless, odorless, and shapeless. This is an example of Kant's ding an sich, which some people can't wrap their minds around. Phenomenon versus Noumenom is an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:

Noumenon :
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Wikipedia

Ding an sich :
(in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.

concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things. — Pop

I was not familiar with the term "Enactivism", although I think you have referred to it before. To me, it seems to focus on the two-pronged Informative power of EnFormAction : the ability to create both physical (things) and meta-physical (ideas) Forms. Information is both the physical structure of Material objects and the rational structure of Meaningful ideas. :smile:


Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. ... this domain does not exist "out there" in an environment that acts as a landing pad for organisms that somehow drop or parachute into the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

It's not that we form mental images of objects and that we don't have access to the objects themselves. That's a kind of logical empiricism that would make my loved ones very unreal indeed. The situation can be compared with that of math in physics. The "shut up and calculate" attitude says that we will never know the objects an Sich. But the math is merely descriptive. It describes some objective properties. Math is merely a mental construction that we project upon the physical universe. The formalist approach is untennable. The intuitive approach bears fruit. — Platoon

Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there. :cool:

What is formalist approach? :
Formalism may be defined as a critical approach in which the text under discussion is considered primarily as a structure of words. That is, the main focus is on the arrangement of language, rather than on the implications of the words, or on the biographical and historical relevance of the work in question.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-20768-8_2
Note : sounds like Postmodernism to me. No relation to Enformationism.

Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there. — Gnomon

What's naive about it? Are there naive realities and adult realities or something like that? Of course drug-induced hallicunations are just that. Hallicunations.

Formalism is a math approach that states that math objects are real. No human inventions.

Photons and gauge fields in general are pure energy.

What's naive about it? — Jeunesocrate

Do you think that Idealists are uninformed, irrational, or biased? :smile:

Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)

Photons and gauge fields in general are pure energy. — Jeunesocrate

What are the intrinsic physical properties of "pure energy" fields? As noted below, they are imaginary abstract models of hypothetical (immaterial) mathematical "structures". In Architecture school, I built models of buildings that were not-yet-real, and never became real. Their only reality was in their effects on the observer, who might decide to construct a full-scale model.

Those "naive" (pretend) models had some superficial (virtual) resemblance to a real building, but were not suitable for occupancy. They were useful only for thinking and planning for the real thing. So, in what sense is a quantum field real? It affects matter, but is not itself matter, being merely a mental construct. Scientists detect the effects of those ghostly fields with their instruments, but not the field an sich. Likewise, ghost hunters with gadgets search for physical effects of nearby ectoplasm, which they imagine as a pure energy field. But, as far as I know they have never "seen" a ghost with their eyes, only with their imagination.

I don't believe in ghosts, and I don't believe in quantum fields, which like building models are merely useful illustrations . But I can observe the effects of those imaginary objects on believers. At least, the concept of fields is useful for guiding scientists in their mathematical manipulations. Unlike ghost theory, quantum theory sometimes actually leads to real results in the material world. In magic, physical effects are identified with non-physical causes. And in mathematics, physical effects are identified with virtual causes. :nerd:

Pure Energy : uncontaminated with gross matter.

Quantum fields are composed of particles. Okay, virtual particles,
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

Virtual : not real ; not actual ; quasi-real
"not physically existing as such"
"being such in essence or effect"
.
In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi  QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Turing patterns are fascinating. — Pop

This is new to me. I looked into it a little on Wikipedia and an extension of Turing patterns schematized for biology (to deal with cell structure) can model LALI systems. The application models gene expression in developing limb formation as an example. Small changes in binding constants and diffusion rates can control growth rates to produce different structures. Looks like they can run computer models and various limb structures develop...so yes, fascinating. Probably not advanced enough to model entire organisms or complicated organs like brains.

My opinion, is Turing patterns don't involve information but are entirely physical states.
Like I said, it's new to me and I'm just trying to paraphrase Wikipedia.

My opinion, is this doesn't involve information but is an entirely physical process. — Mark Nyquist

Turing was such a brilliant mind. He really deserved to be celebrated like Einstein, not treated the way he was.

I'm starting to see information as an entirely physical process. It seems to be physical everywhere else as the interaction of systems - causing a change in them. But I have some work ahead of me if I am going to convince immaterial minds. :smile:

I like the definition of brain state is information. It could be the case that brain function is so advanced that most people just think everything is information.

BRAIN(I have an immaterial mind) = BRAIN(mental content) = brain state = specific information

I like the definition of brain state is information. It could be the case that brain function is so advanced that most people just think everything is information. — Mark Nyquist

BRAIN(I have an immaterial mind) = BRAIN(mental content) = brain state = specific information — Mark Nyquist

Brain state as immaterial mind, is pretty much the end of the road theoretically. Once information becomes something immaterial we can not say much else about it.

If brain state is a physical patterning however, then information is a change to this physical patterning, then a brain is a body of past information, just like everything else is, and this leads to a theory of everything as evolving bodies of information.

Brain state as immaterial mind, is pretty much the end of the road theoretically. — Pop

I agree. The example is just to show how someone could hold this view but in fact it would be held as a physical state...brain state.

I agree. The example is just to show how someone could hold this view but in fact it would be held as a physical state...brain state. — Mark Nyquist

Oh, I see. Cool, we can continue to speculate then! :smile:

I agree. — Mark Nyquist

If brain state is a physical patterning however, then information is a change to this physical patterning, then a brain is a body of past information, just like everything else is, and this leads to a theory of everything as evolving bodies of information. — Pop

We can be certain that everything exists as a body of information, as that is how it must exist in the physical patterning of our brains. This is not to suggest solipsism, but to suggest that everything physical in the universe exists in the same way - as an evolving body of information, as I see it anyway.