TPF : Integrated Information Theory

[Gnomon]

Integrated Information Theory
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -theory/p1

keeping my fingers crossed that consciousness turns out to be a mathematical pattern — TheMadFool
How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? — RogueAI

The technical mathematical calculations of IIT are way over my head. But, I think ↪TheMadFool
's wording of the relationship -- seeming to identify Consciousness with Mathematical patterns -- has the direction of perception backward. Patterns (forms), mathematical or otherwise, are what we are conscious of. Patterns are the external "objects" that our subjective Consciousness interprets as meaningful, including mathematical values & social relationships.

IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness as a computative process is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors -- comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning.

Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness? :
So, although IIT is a useful theory for understanding “C” for scientific purposes, it doesn’t really answer the “hard” philosophical questions, such as “how and why do we experience subjective qualia?”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page80.html

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

[Gnomon]

all that would be needed is a brand new mathematical tool that'll do the job in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool

Some mathematicians & physicists, have advocated the "new science" of Cellular Automata, as a way to go beyond Analytic and Algorithmic methods in the search for knowledge. Unfortunately, as a path to new knowledge, CA may not appeal to analytical and reductive thinkers, because it is ultimately "undecidable". Stephen Wolfram, in his book, A new Kind of Science, advocates CA as a way to study complex systems, such as Minds, that are resistant to reductive methods. In other words, the new methods, including IIT, take a more holistic approach to undecidable and non-computable questions, such as "what is it like to be a bat?".


Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Cellular Automata :
The Game of Life is undecidable, which means that given an initial pattern and a later pattern, no algorithm exists that can tell whether the later pattern is ever going to appear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

A New Kind of Science :
Wolfram argues that one of his achievements is in providing a coherent system of ideas that justifies computation as an organizing principle of science. For instance, he argues that the concept of computational irreducibility (that some complex computations are not amenable to short-cuts and cannot be "reduced"), is ultimately the reason why computational models of nature must be considered in addition to traditional mathematical models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

[Gnomon]

↪frank

I understand quality to be pure relational or organisational structure: an existence of relation without substance. In language, we can’t really make sense of quality until we attribute it as a property of. — Possibility

IIT seems to be intended as a step toward computerizing Consciousness. If you can quantify mental qualities, then you can conceivably construct a Star Trek Transporter, which analyzes a human body and mind into 1s & 0s, then transmits that digital information across space to a receiver, which then interprets the abstract numbers back into a concrete living thinking feeling human. But some Star Trek episodes addressed the reluctance of some people to be transported. Not because they doubted the mathematical algorithms ability to quantify matter, but because they were afraid that the essence of their Self/Soul would be filtered-out in the process of turning Qualia into Quanta. Other Science-Fiction writers have expressed that same concern in personal terms : "will that reconstituted body still be me?"

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, in his latest book HELGOLAND, presents his "relational" interpretation of Quantum Theory. He says "properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects". Those "bridges" are what we know in other contexts as "relationships". And the human mind interprets those patterns of relations as Qualitative Meaning. On a cosmic scale, it's what Rovelli calls : "the web of relations that weaves reality". And Reality is the "organizational structure" of the world. Ironically, this approach to physics places the emphasis on the mental links (relations, meanings) instead of the material nodes (substance). So, some of his fellow physicists will find that promotion of Mind above Matter to be tantamount to Panpsychism. Although, Rovelli doesn't go quite that far in his book.

[Gnomon]

I think the main focus of IIT is more in predicting consciousness with greater accuracy. — Possibility

Yes. That too. IIT may be useful for the current application of computers in the search for hidden signs of consciousness in people that outwardly appear to be in a vegetative state (wakeful unawareness).

I doubt that Tononi had Star Trek technology in mind as he developed his theory. But the notion of quantifying consciousness would be a necessary step in that direction. The question remains though, if the quantitative values (objective numbers) would also include qualitative values (subjective feelings). Or would the holistic Self be filtered-out in the process of reducing a person to raw data?

PS__Rovelli's book focuses on the fundamental physical quantum-level inter-connectedness of the universe -- as the "web of relations that weaves reality". But, as a sober scientist, he avoids speculating on such meta-physical holistic notions as Cosmic Consciousness. He does, however, in a footnote, comment on Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos : "on a careful reading, I find that it doesn't offer any convincing arguments to sustain his thesis".

[Gnomon]

Rovelli’s use of the h-bar is not as a symbol of quantum level ‘communication’ - it acts as a qualitative limitation in any calculated prediction. — Possibility

"Communication" was my term, not Rovelli's. And it was used deliberately, even though Rovelli specifically excludes the definition of "Information" that is relevant to my personal worldview. He says "the word 'information' . . . . is a word packed with ambiguity". That's exactly why I spend a lot of verbiage in my thesis & blog, to specify what I do and don't mean by "information", in the context of my un-orthodox understanding of how the world works -- not physically, but metaphysically. He goes on to say "'Information' is used here in an objective physical sense that has nothing to do with meaning". And that's OK for scientific descriptions of the physical world. But my concern is with the philosophical (semantic) meaning of metaphysical Information, as one human communicates subjective ideas to other humans.

In its most abstract and general sense, Information is simply mathematical ratios --- relationships between one un-specified thing and another, (X : Y = 1 : 2). Those logical relations boil-down to yes/no, or true/false, or 1/0, as in digital computer code. And ratios or relationships have no meaning until they are interpreted by an observer : either a third party, or one of the communicants, who has a subjective perspective. And the "meaning" of an interchange is interpreted relative to the unique frame-of-reference of that third party. It is not an empirical fact of reality.

So, I take Rovelli's emphasis on the "relational" interpretation of quantum theory, as a pragmatic definition for physical scientific purposes. But my purpose is philosophical and metaphysical, in that it is concerned with how Conscious Minds, capable of knowing abstract Qualia, could evolve from a world of concrete Quanta. Therefore, for me, the relevant usage of "Information" is for qualitative concepts, not quantitative percepts. And the notion of a Prime Observer (third party), or holistic Cosmic Mind, has a qualitative meaning, that would not be of interest to a physicist attempting to reduce reality down to its fundamental granular quanta at the Planck scale. The holistic meaning of "reality" is continuous & non-finite, and exists only as a meaningful concept in a subjective mind. But then, as the "mind of god", that universal view would also be our objective reality. Yes?


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. . . . 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

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

[Gnomon]

Back to IIT, though - I think the above postulates highlight the limitations of a quantitative theory. Relevant information is that which counts for predicting future interaction with the system. Consciousness isn’t just about quantity, but about relevance: what counts for predicting future interaction. — Possibility

That's why I think quantitative IIT is a step in the right direction for reductive Science, but still can't account for the holistic aspects of the world, that are relevant to all humans, not just empirical scientists.

Reply to RougueAI above "
IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness, as a computative process, is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors : comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning.