Well, I can't tell. It's too general. Even after your elaboration of it, it's too theoretical for me. I love Math but not so muach on a theoretical level.I was thinking of the problem is the most simple way in mathematics. Usually our models are mathematical, so the simple model would be y=f(x) where the function, the algorithm, here is the thing that explains the change, right? — ssu
Right. I have taken a two-semester course of Economics in college and I loved it. Everything was very clear to me. Everything made sense. A few years later, I couldn't explain anything regarding economic situations, like relationships between unemployment and inflation, inflation and bank interest rates, the effects os stock markets and all that stuff. Nothing made sense to me anymore! :smile:The problem is that when the aggregate of economics decisions of all players in the economy make is affected by the model itself that tries to explain there actions, where then is objectivity? — ssu
Of course.Only in some situations you can find a solution. But if the feedback loop is self-referrential and negative, there is no answer. — ssu
If you mean self-consciousness, or better self-awareness, I believe yes, it plays a crucial role. Esp. in distiguishing humans from other beings.And lastly, I think it's obvious that self-reference plays a crucial part in consciousness. — ssu
Of course, the specific object is not important. I have not heard any panpsychist say any inanimate object has a minds. Although I guess the exact definition of "mind" might need to be agreed upon.What about a ball? Or a pencil? :smile:
"Stone" was just an example, Patterner. Any object would do. And surely you must have heard about matter having consciousness in a panpsychist context. — Alkis Piskas
You can get a pretty good idea of my own ideas and position on the subject in the last post I made before that one, looks like eleven posts before it.But I would like better to hear about your own ideas and position on the subject. — Alkis Piskas
The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind. — Gnomon
I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy" but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. — Gnomon
Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions. — Gnomon
"Conscious Experience" is a form of repetition of a concept in different words, for emphasis.Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind. — Alkis Piskas
Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". If you want a bare bones summary of the Enformationism, look at Wheeler's scientific thesis*3.Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile:In the above quote do you express a binary view of physical/non-physical, which is to ask, do you see them as discrete polarities? — ucarr
I can't speak for Deacon, but I'd interpret his Mind/Matter ; Presence/Absence ; Potential/Actual ; Real/Ideal duality as merely the appearance to our physical senses and pondering minds. Yet philosophically, I suspect that he would accept a "non-binary" fundamentally Monistic view, but I can't see it as a form of Materialism in any sense. :cool:Above I asked about you possibly owning a binary physical/non-physical view because I suspect Deacon is propounding a view that might be characterized as absential-materialism, or absential-existentialism. As such, his theory is, in my understanding, non-binary materialism. — ucarr
I have already compared & contrasted bits & pieces of his Incompleteness theorem in my blog, as noted in posts above. But, while similar, they are not really parallel concepts. His is professional & scientific and mine is amateur & philosophical. I have merely adopted some of his evocative terminology --- Absence & Aboutness --- for my own purposes. :nerd:Your overview of Incomplete Nature is instructive and useful. Can you contrast Incomplete Nature and Enformationism? — ucarr
Do you consider Philosophy --- "contrived solutions" --- a waste of time? Should we all just accept our personal intuition, without making any attempt to resolve differences of opinion on such questions? Should we all just play video games instead of posting on opinion-swapping forums? :smile:Have you ever considered that your subconscious mind has solved the problem of consciousness better than what you do in attempting to define it formally? Maybe your neural network is better at solving this problem through trial and error over time than you are at attempting a formal definition.
I think that's the case. And the natural solution is better than the contrived solution of a formal definition. — Mark Nyquist
If the information is born from the a posteriori relationship, it must always be assumed a priori that there is a moment of uninformed reality (in the sense that there is no message hidden or stored somewhere). — JuanZu
I don't quite understand the reasoning that leads to saying that an inanimate object, like a rock, can have consciousness or some degree of it. — JuanZu
If you remove brains from the relevant environment information doesn't exist.
Can you refute that? — Mark Nyquist
Without brains any meaning would not even exist. Just physical matter existing as physical matter. Why should I take you seriously? — Mark Nyquist
Alright, if that is your position.. — Mark Nyquist
I'm a bit confused by this. I've often made the point that one can take an item of information - say a recipe, formula, or even an anecdote - and translate it between (1) different languages; (2) different media (e.g. magnetic media, pencil and paper, engraving on metal) and (3) different symbolic systems (i.e. language, binary code, morse code). But in each case if the information is received and interpreted correctly, the result will be a correct representation of the original information in a different form. — Wayfarer
The reasoning is this... Physical properties do not explain how a clump of matter can have things like subjective experience and self-awareness. We can see how physical properties, like mass and charge, build atoms. We can see how atoms build molecules. We can see how molecules build physical objects. We can see how physical objects interact, giving us physical processes, like flight and metabolism. We can deconstruct flight and metabolism, down further and further, until we get to physical properties like mass and charge.I don't quite understand the reasoning that leads to saying that an inanimate object, like a rock, can have consciousness or some degree of it. — JuanZu
andWe have yet to articulate a robust scientific explanation of conscious experience. We lack a conclusive account of how consciousness manifests a private world of sights and sounds and sensations. We cannot yet respond, or at least not with full force, to assertions that consciousness stands outside conventional science. The gap is unlikely to be filled anytime soon. Most everyone who has thought about thinking realizes that cracking consciousness, explaining our inner worlds in purely scientific terms, poses one of our most formidable challenges.
And within that mathematical description, affirmed by decades of data from particle colliders and powerful telescopes, there is nothing that even hints at the inner experiences those particles somehow generate. How can a collection of mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise? Particles can have mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), but all these qualities seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience. How then does a whirl of particles inside a head—which is all that a brain is—create impressions, sensations, and feelings?
andWhy should there be conscious experience at all? It is central to a subjective viewpoint, but from an objective viewpoint it is utterly unexpected. Taking the objective view, we can tell a story about how fields, waves, and particles in the spatiotemporal manifold interact in subtle ways, leading to the development of complex systems such as brains. In principle, there is no deep philosophical mystery in the fact that these systems can process information in complex ways, react to stimuli with sophisticated behavior, and even exhibit such complex capacities as learning, memory, and language. All this is impressive, but it is not metaphysically baffling. In contrast, the existence of conscious experience seems to be a new feature from this viewpoint. It is not something that one would have predicted from the other features alone.
That is, consciousness is surprising. If all we knew about were the facts of physics, and even the facts about dynamics and information processing in complex systems, there would be no compelling reason to postulate the existence of conscious experience. — The Conscious Mind
You could explain all the behavior, all the structure, all the function you like, in the vicinity of consciousness. The things I do, the things I say, the amazing dynamics of the human brain. And it will still leave this further open question: Why is all that accompanied by first person, subjective experience of the mind in the world? — https://youtu.be/PI-cESvGlKc?si=AzE5wvKURbif6rcE
But I just gave you a reference about that, the definition of "Panpsychism". Do you reject it, as well as all references with a similar description, on the ground that you have not heard any panpsychist say that any inanimate object has a mind? Or do you have another definition of P according to which objects are not conscious or do not have consciousness?I have not heard any panpsychist say any inanimate object has a minds. — Patterner
Yes, we already talked about that.Although I guess the exact definition of "mind" might need to be agreed upon. — Patterner
You make my life difficult, Patterner. :smile: Couldn't you give me just the link of that post?You can get a pretty good idea of my own ideas and position on the subject in the last post I made before that one, looks like eleven posts before it. — Patterner
Oddly enough, I believe it's correct. — Wayfarer
So serious scientific minds that are dedicated to the idea that it is explainable in physical terms say we cannot do so. While that is not evidence that it is not explainable in physical terms, it is certainly not evidence that it is. The Hard Problem is hard, and unsolved, according to the experts on opposite sides of the fence. — Patterner
I asked a chatbot. — Wayfarer
Ducks on a Pond.I asked the ice, it would not say
But only cracked or moved away,
I thought I knew me yesterday
Whoever sings this song. — The Incredible String Band
...meaning that appears does not precede the relationship that actualizes it. — JuanZu
A description is not the thing described. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.