my coherence field theory to neuroscience for your entertainment — Enrique
Unfortunately, your articles are way over my head. So, I'm not able to evaluate their validity. But I have seen a variety of attempts by physicists to show neuroscientists how Physics can explain Consciousness. For example, British physicist Johnjoe McFadden "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain's energy field". His theory seems to be a physicist's version of Tononi's Integrated Information theory. Could your "Coherence Field" be related to those other theories, in that the key feature is Holistic unification or integration (cooperation ; working together) of independent elements, such as neurons?
New Theory of Consciousness :
I argue here that nearly all examples of so-called ‘integrated information’, including neuronal information processing and conventional computing, are only temporally integrated in the sense that outputs are correlated with multiple inputs: the information integration is implemented in time, rather than space, and thereby cannot correspond to physically integrated information. I point out that only energy fields are capable of integrating information in space. ____McFadden
https://neurosciencenews.com/electromag ... ess-17191/
Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, why they feel the particular way they do in particular states, and what it would take for other physical systems to be conscious. ___Wikipedia
"e pluribus unum" : one out of many
Coherence
Integration
Organization
Unification
Cooperation
Holism
Enformation : to cause unrelated things to function as one interrelated system
TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
I'm not an adherent of the "existence is fundamentally information" framework, but I think it might become possible to scientifically test your hypothesis that the universe is an integrated consciousness once we comprehend the physics of consciousness' basic building blocks. — Enrique
In my thesis, EnFormAction (generic information) is simply the causal-power-to-enform : to cause isolated unrelated things to cohere into a functional unity : a recognizable purposeful Form. One kind of "functional unity" is Consciousness, which is the functional (purposeful) output of integrated (coherent) neurons. Neurons themselves are merely channels (conduits) for energy*1. But, by working together as a goal-directed system, those neurons, and other supporting structures, become Sentient.
That transformation is not magic though, it happens everywhere everyday. It's more like a physical Phase Transition, in which the functional properties of H2O are transformed. So, I would assume that the same kind of scientific testing, that parses Phase Change into a logical operation, might serve to test the hypothesis that the whole universe is a Cosmic Information Processor (CIP), converting raw material into things & meanings.
PS__One metaphorical method to make sense of the abstruse account above is to imagine that Information is the Essence of Energy. Just as Einstein showed that Matter is "fundamentally" Energy, Quantum physics is beginning to indicate that physical Energy is essentially one aspect of the universal power to Enform (to cause change of form). And the causal power is in the relationships, the ratios, such as Hot vs Cold, Positive vs Negative. In Einstein's formula, the constant "C" is basically the ratio of lightspeed to zero velocity (changelessness).
*1. In my thesis, Energy is one form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). The other forms are Matter & Mind. Matter is a physical (massive) form of invisible intangible Energy (E=MC^2). And Mind is a metaphysical (immaterial) form of coherent Information. Mind is simply the ability to cognize, to know, to become aware of the other forms of EnFormAction. The act of Enforming (causation) produces Form-Change in both Physics (Matter) and Metaphysics (Mind).
*2. A Phase Transition is a change of state (mode of being). Functionally water is different from ice & steam. But each phase or mode has a practical role in physics. Likewise, a phase transition from tangled masses of neurons to logical cognition has a meaningful purpose in the operation & evolution of the information-based universe.
In my thesis, EnFormAction (generic information) is simply the causal-power-to-enform : to cause isolated unrelated things to cohere into a functional unity : a recognizable purposeful Form. One kind of "functional unity" is Consciousness, which is the functional (purposeful) output of integrated (coherent) neurons. Neurons themselves are merely channels (conduits) for energy*1. But, by working together as a goal-directed system, those neurons, and other supporting structures, become Sentient.
That transformation is not magic though, it happens everywhere everyday. It's more like a physical Phase Transition, in which the functional properties of H2O are transformed. So, I would assume that the same kind of scientific testing, that parses Phase Change into a logical operation, might serve to test the hypothesis that the whole universe is a Cosmic Information Processor (CIP), converting raw material into things & meanings.
PS__One metaphorical method to make sense of the abstruse account above is to imagine that Information is the Essence of Energy. Just as Einstein showed that Matter is "fundamentally" Energy, Quantum physics is beginning to indicate that physical Energy is essentially one aspect of the universal power to Enform (to cause change of form). And the causal power is in the relationships, the ratios, such as Hot vs Cold, Positive vs Negative. In Einstein's formula, the constant "C" is basically the ratio of lightspeed to zero velocity (changelessness).
*1. In my thesis, Energy is one form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). The other forms are Matter & Mind. Matter is a physical (massive) form of invisible intangible Energy (E=MC^2). And Mind is a metaphysical (immaterial) form of coherent Information. Mind is simply the ability to cognize, to know, to become aware of the other forms of EnFormAction. The act of Enforming (causation) produces Form-Change in both Physics (Matter) and Metaphysics (Mind).
*2. A Phase Transition is a change of state (mode of being). Functionally water is different from ice & steam. But each phase or mode has a practical role in physics. Likewise, a phase transition from tangled masses of neurons to logical cognition has a meaningful purpose in the operation & evolution of the information-based universe.
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Every scientific explanation is an exercise in reductionism, are we to assume that consciousness can be reduced? what if it cannot be? — Sherlock Holmes
I can't speak for Enrique. but his Coherence Theory seems to be more Holistic than Reductive. Admittedly, that is more of a philosophical approach than scientific, but he proposes to explain his thesis in terms of physical processes, rather than spiritual. The problem with Holistic concepts is that you have to swallow it whole. But if you list the particular ingredients of the red pill, at least you can know that you are getting some nutrients, and not just a sugar pill.
I can't speak for Enrique. but his Coherence Theory seems to be more Holistic than Reductive. Admittedly, that is more of a philosophical approach than scientific, but he proposes to explain his thesis in terms of physical processes, rather than spiritual. The problem with Holistic concepts is that you have to swallow it whole. But if you list the particular ingredients of the red pill, at least you can know that you are getting some nutrients, and not just a sugar pill.
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
A Coherence Field Theory of Physics and Consciousness . . . .
I think it's apparent that consciousness can be profoundly reduced to physical processes, but what these processes are at base, presuming a foundation even exists, is not known. — Enrique
Some have expressed concern about using Reductive methods to study a Holistic phenomenon like Consciousness. But I notice that you refer to your CFT as a "coherent field" theory. Which indicates that you recognize that examining individual particles as Things will not reveal much about the Systems and Processes they contribute to. For example, an electron is sometimes treated as-if it's an isolated particle of solid Matter, when it is actually more like an integrated drop in the ocean of an electromagnetic field. Consequently, studying a drop of salty water will not tell you much about the ocean as a whole. That's why the original Reductive methods of empirical Science have lately made room for the Holistic methods of Systems Theory.
Likewise, the reductive search for the seat of consciousness (e.g. Pineal gland?)*1 in the brain has not been very fruitful. That's because Consciousness is not that simple. Instead, it emerges from a complex, multi-organ integrated unified process. Each of those organs, and sub-processes, contributes to the immaterial Function we call "Knowing", but no particle alone is sentient. That's why a reductive microscopic view will not yield the secret to Sentient Matter. Hence, Consciousness must be studied in vivo, not in vitro. Neuroscientists have "profoundly reduced" Consciousness to physical neural processes (physiology, not psychology), but have not yet reached the foundation of a knowing Mind. Now it's time to put all those processes back together, to see what the jig-saw puzzle will look like as meaningful image.
Ironically, Systems Theory is more of a philosophical approach (using innate Reason & Logic) than a scientific method of extending the reach of sensory organs with mechanical tools. For example, the only tool that can be used to dissect an invisible intangible Quantum Field is Mathematics, which is simply formalized Reason & Logic. I suppose that's why they call it a hypothetical "theory" instead of a physical "measurement". Therefore, calling your CFT a "field theory" seems to indicate that it is basically a Systems Theory. Is that correct?
*1. The Pineal gland is sometimes referred to as the "third eye" because it secretes Melatonin, which is sensitive to light, but not for vision. Instead, it controls the Circadian Rhythm, which is a continuous cyclic process, not a single isolated thing.
Systems Theory :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism
a day ago
I think it's apparent that consciousness can be profoundly reduced to physical processes, but what these processes are at base, presuming a foundation even exists, is not known. — Enrique
Some have expressed concern about using Reductive methods to study a Holistic phenomenon like Consciousness. But I notice that you refer to your CFT as a "coherent field" theory. Which indicates that you recognize that examining individual particles as Things will not reveal much about the Systems and Processes they contribute to. For example, an electron is sometimes treated as-if it's an isolated particle of solid Matter, when it is actually more like an integrated drop in the ocean of an electromagnetic field. Consequently, studying a drop of salty water will not tell you much about the ocean as a whole. That's why the original Reductive methods of empirical Science have lately made room for the Holistic methods of Systems Theory.
Likewise, the reductive search for the seat of consciousness (e.g. Pineal gland?)*1 in the brain has not been very fruitful. That's because Consciousness is not that simple. Instead, it emerges from a complex, multi-organ integrated unified process. Each of those organs, and sub-processes, contributes to the immaterial Function we call "Knowing", but no particle alone is sentient. That's why a reductive microscopic view will not yield the secret to Sentient Matter. Hence, Consciousness must be studied in vivo, not in vitro. Neuroscientists have "profoundly reduced" Consciousness to physical neural processes (physiology, not psychology), but have not yet reached the foundation of a knowing Mind. Now it's time to put all those processes back together, to see what the jig-saw puzzle will look like as meaningful image.
Ironically, Systems Theory is more of a philosophical approach (using innate Reason & Logic) than a scientific method of extending the reach of sensory organs with mechanical tools. For example, the only tool that can be used to dissect an invisible intangible Quantum Field is Mathematics, which is simply formalized Reason & Logic. I suppose that's why they call it a hypothetical "theory" instead of a physical "measurement". Therefore, calling your CFT a "field theory" seems to indicate that it is basically a Systems Theory. Is that correct?
*1. The Pineal gland is sometimes referred to as the "third eye" because it secretes Melatonin, which is sensitive to light, but not for vision. Instead, it controls the Circadian Rhythm, which is a continuous cyclic process, not a single isolated thing.
Systems Theory :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism
a day ago
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
It is perhaps more accurate to consider light and atoms as part of a larger energy field that is fundamentally nonelectromagnetic, through which coherent energy can in many cases flow without being restricted to electromagnetism's speed limits and characteristic shieldings of force. Phenomena of consciousness seem to necessitate that this is the case, but macroscopic coherence among electromagnetically homogeneous systems has not been effectively modeled to this point. — Enrique
I don't have the technical qualifications to follow your argument for a "Coherence Field". But in my own layman's musings, I have developed a philosophical worldview that seems to be amenable to your more scientific theory. My own thesis is coming from a different direction, but arrived at a similar conclusion.
My personal notion of a "non-electromagnetic" field is Information-centric instead of Matter/Energy based. I won't go into the details here, but some avant-garde scientists have concluded that Matter & Energy are actually special forms of the Universal Power to Enform -- that I call "EnFormAction". EFA includes the ability to animate material bodies (Life), and to produce (inform) abstract ideas in a neural network (Mind). Similar ideas are especially associated with physicist & cosmologist Paul Davies*1, and with neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch*2. Perhaps an even bolder proposal is the new information-based paradigm by physicist/complexity-theorist James Glattfelder*3.
So, maybe your "model" of (logical??) Coherence can dovetail into these other non-reductive, non-traditional theories of how some physical systems came to be conscious. Imagined as a bonding or integrating force, Coherence may explain how novel holistic properties emerge from collections of non-sentient matter. I don't want to deflect you from your own path, but maybe some of these other approaches could inform your thesis.
*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality,
___Davies, et al
*2. Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, . ___Tononi
*3. Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : an information-theoretic ontology
The primacy of consciousness
___James Glattfelder
Information Field :
My guess, as expressed in the Enformationism theory, is that Life & Mind are phase changes of energy as it transforms over time and in space. Here’s a Cliff Notes synopsis : Energy begins as a continuous field of potential, then emerges as discrete particles of matter. Later, from the complex interplay of energy & matter, stars & stuff, animated Life emerges. Then, as Life interacts with other life – as social groups or predator/prey interactions – Mind arises to control external behavior. Finally, Consciousness emerges to moderate the flow of internal thoughts. So, the Brain/Mind Paradox is a problem only because they are intimately connected at the root, while displaying different qualities at the crown.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
I don't have the technical qualifications to follow your argument for a "Coherence Field". But in my own layman's musings, I have developed a philosophical worldview that seems to be amenable to your more scientific theory. My own thesis is coming from a different direction, but arrived at a similar conclusion.
My personal notion of a "non-electromagnetic" field is Information-centric instead of Matter/Energy based. I won't go into the details here, but some avant-garde scientists have concluded that Matter & Energy are actually special forms of the Universal Power to Enform -- that I call "EnFormAction". EFA includes the ability to animate material bodies (Life), and to produce (inform) abstract ideas in a neural network (Mind). Similar ideas are especially associated with physicist & cosmologist Paul Davies*1, and with neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch*2. Perhaps an even bolder proposal is the new information-based paradigm by physicist/complexity-theorist James Glattfelder*3.
So, maybe your "model" of (logical??) Coherence can dovetail into these other non-reductive, non-traditional theories of how some physical systems came to be conscious. Imagined as a bonding or integrating force, Coherence may explain how novel holistic properties emerge from collections of non-sentient matter. I don't want to deflect you from your own path, but maybe some of these other approaches could inform your thesis.
*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality,
___Davies, et al
*2. Integrated information theory attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems are conscious, . ___Tononi
*3. Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : an information-theoretic ontology
The primacy of consciousness
___James Glattfelder
Information Field :
My guess, as expressed in the Enformationism theory, is that Life & Mind are phase changes of energy as it transforms over time and in space. Here’s a Cliff Notes synopsis : Energy begins as a continuous field of potential, then emerges as discrete particles of matter. Later, from the complex interplay of energy & matter, stars & stuff, animated Life emerges. Then, as Life interacts with other life – as social groups or predator/prey interactions – Mind arises to control external behavior. Finally, Consciousness emerges to moderate the flow of internal thoughts. So, the Brain/Mind Paradox is a problem only because they are intimately connected at the root, while displaying different qualities at the crown.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
Coherence field theory isn't holistic or reductionistic so much as staunchly realist. I think it should be possible to integrate with information theory as an emergent level of conceptualization, but at this stage that would deviate from an essential facet of my realist approach, which is to be firmly rooted in the "atomic facts" of material processes. — Enrique
Perhaps a "staunchly realistic" perspective would include both General (holistic) and Particular (reductive) facts. Shannon reduced Information theory to atoms of data called "bits" & "bytes". But other information theorists have broadened their scope to include "ideas" & "meanings". Reality consists of both Isolated Parts (holons) and Integrated Systems (wholes). One kind of undivided system is a Quantum Field of Superposition. Only when you pop the bubble with a measurement, does a detached particle appear, as-if from nowhere.
A quantum theorist once said something like : "the quantum atom is a field"; implying that the fundamental substance is not a particle, but a whole integrated system of (virtual ; potential) bits & bytes. If so, then "material processes" are ultimately processing Information. Admittedly, such a complex holistic view is more philosophical (generalization) than scientific (simplification). So it may not suit your "firmly rooted" approach. Holistic facts are not isolated cells, but entangled snarls of roots. Glattfelder calls it "the rhizome of reality".
Information - Consciousness - Reality :
He then offers two ways of understanding this dynamic world : in Aristotelian terms as “the entelechy of existence”, and the metaphor of “the rhizome of reality”. Later, he mentions a more technological way to think of reality, as a mathematical structure forming “the software that connects us, that enables all distributed systems, including life itself”. However, he seems to think of this evolving complexifying mechanism as more like a living cosmic organism. Hence, the notion that it is becoming self-reflective, as some of its creatures have become capable of forming mental models of the whole cosmic system.
___James Glattfelder
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Entelechy :
Philosophy
1. the realization of potential.
2. the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.
Are quantum fields real or merely a mathematical tool used to describe elementary particles? :
https://www.quora.com/Are-quantum-field ... -particles
AN ENTANGLED RHIZOME OF ROOTS
wp2cf34605_05_06.jpg
Perhaps a "staunchly realistic" perspective would include both General (holistic) and Particular (reductive) facts. Shannon reduced Information theory to atoms of data called "bits" & "bytes". But other information theorists have broadened their scope to include "ideas" & "meanings". Reality consists of both Isolated Parts (holons) and Integrated Systems (wholes). One kind of undivided system is a Quantum Field of Superposition. Only when you pop the bubble with a measurement, does a detached particle appear, as-if from nowhere.
A quantum theorist once said something like : "the quantum atom is a field"; implying that the fundamental substance is not a particle, but a whole integrated system of (virtual ; potential) bits & bytes. If so, then "material processes" are ultimately processing Information. Admittedly, such a complex holistic view is more philosophical (generalization) than scientific (simplification). So it may not suit your "firmly rooted" approach. Holistic facts are not isolated cells, but entangled snarls of roots. Glattfelder calls it "the rhizome of reality".
Information - Consciousness - Reality :
He then offers two ways of understanding this dynamic world : in Aristotelian terms as “the entelechy of existence”, and the metaphor of “the rhizome of reality”. Later, he mentions a more technological way to think of reality, as a mathematical structure forming “the software that connects us, that enables all distributed systems, including life itself”. However, he seems to think of this evolving complexifying mechanism as more like a living cosmic organism. Hence, the notion that it is becoming self-reflective, as some of its creatures have become capable of forming mental models of the whole cosmic system.
___James Glattfelder
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Entelechy :
Philosophy
1. the realization of potential.
2. the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.
Are quantum fields real or merely a mathematical tool used to describe elementary particles? :
https://www.quora.com/Are-quantum-field ... -particles
AN ENTANGLED RHIZOME OF ROOTS
wp2cf34605_05_06.jpg
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
As for the way measurement collapses superpositions into a particulate state, I think this must involve some kind of physical process — Enrique
Oh, it definitely involves a physical process, but it also seems to require a mental action, such as Intention*1 (goal-setting ; aiming ; direction ; purpose). In Beyond Weird, Philip Ball discusses the still unresolved "measurement problem". And he notes that "everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement". Moreover, the non-physical aspect of an experimental setup*2 is the intention of the Experimenter/Observer. That's why I mentioned that the Latin root of "to measure" is mensura, and the root of mensura is mens-, meaning "mind" or "intention". That may be why physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that the Mind of the Observer "participates" in the experiment. So, a quantum measurement involves both physical apparatus, and a psychological act of intention.
Consequently, I interpret the act-of-measurement as the extraction of binding-integrating Information from the superposed wave into the mind of the experimenter. Thus, metaphorically, popping the non-local whole balloon into a particular entity, with both position & velocity in space. Over the last century, physicists & philosophers have argued back & forth about the role of the observer. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I have concluded that it's the non-physical Mind that makes the difference between a continuous wave of potential, and a localized particle of energy. It's not magic, but it is a sort of mind-over-matter causation. The wave is omni-directional & omni-potential, but the arbitrary choice of physical setup*2 forces it to reveal some otherwise hidden information (e.g. interference patterns ; like a herd of horses squeezing single-file through a gate in the corral )
That holistic non-scientific analogy also helps to explain why some information theorists go back to a time before Shannon inadvertently changed the meaning of the word "information" from "knowledge in a mind" to "digits in a computer". Hence, they emphasize the meaningful mental form of Information, instead of the abstract mathematical form. At the same time, a few physicists were beginning to use the term "Information" to describe something more fundamental than even Energy. Recently, physicist Melvin Vopson resurrected Landauer's speculation that abstract & meaningful Information can also become Physical, and has proposed experiments to test the theory.
I apologize, if I'm going off on a tangent from your OP. But I immediately saw the potential for combining your key notion of Cohesion (unity ; bonding ; continuity ; integration ; wholeness) with my notion of the essential inter-relating role of Information*3 (both physical & mental) in the universe. Those invisible, but logical, relationships are what makes Quantum theory seem spooky, when viewed as simply a mindless machine. The potential for Mind was in the material world from the beginning. It just needed to be cohered (squeezed ; channeled ; condensed) into a sentient form of Energy : e.g. Technology.
PS__With Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" in mind, I have proposed that the cosmic constant "C" linking Energy & Mass is not just a meaningless abstract ratio, but defines*4 the relationship between Energy & Matter with specific information; like a setting on a dial.
*1. Intention : In billiards, the intention of the pool-shooter is what makes the difference between random scattering of the opening shot, and the subsequent non-random placing of balls in pre-specified pockets.
*2. Setup : like corralling horses, the wide-open terrain transforms into a fenced-in enclosure, as intended by horse-riding humans
*3. Information : (noun) data ; (verb) to transform ; to create meaning in a mind.
Note -- in its active form (to enform) I spell it with an "E" to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.
*4. To Define : to delimit ; to identify essential qualities (definition is a form of information)
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
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" or "Cooperation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Cosmic Constant : This ratio is usually denoted by ΩΛ and is estimated to be 0.6889±0.0056, according to results published by the Planck Collaboration in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Note -- "Hawking proposed that the cosmological constant is probably zero in quantum cosmology". Its closeness to Zero may explain why the expansion of the universe is so finely balanced between Eternal Inflation & Eventual Collapse.
Oh, it definitely involves a physical process, but it also seems to require a mental action, such as Intention*1 (goal-setting ; aiming ; direction ; purpose). In Beyond Weird, Philip Ball discusses the still unresolved "measurement problem". And he notes that "everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement". Moreover, the non-physical aspect of an experimental setup*2 is the intention of the Experimenter/Observer. That's why I mentioned that the Latin root of "to measure" is mensura, and the root of mensura is mens-, meaning "mind" or "intention". That may be why physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that the Mind of the Observer "participates" in the experiment. So, a quantum measurement involves both physical apparatus, and a psychological act of intention.
Consequently, I interpret the act-of-measurement as the extraction of binding-integrating Information from the superposed wave into the mind of the experimenter. Thus, metaphorically, popping the non-local whole balloon into a particular entity, with both position & velocity in space. Over the last century, physicists & philosophers have argued back & forth about the role of the observer. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I have concluded that it's the non-physical Mind that makes the difference between a continuous wave of potential, and a localized particle of energy. It's not magic, but it is a sort of mind-over-matter causation. The wave is omni-directional & omni-potential, but the arbitrary choice of physical setup*2 forces it to reveal some otherwise hidden information (e.g. interference patterns ; like a herd of horses squeezing single-file through a gate in the corral )
That holistic non-scientific analogy also helps to explain why some information theorists go back to a time before Shannon inadvertently changed the meaning of the word "information" from "knowledge in a mind" to "digits in a computer". Hence, they emphasize the meaningful mental form of Information, instead of the abstract mathematical form. At the same time, a few physicists were beginning to use the term "Information" to describe something more fundamental than even Energy. Recently, physicist Melvin Vopson resurrected Landauer's speculation that abstract & meaningful Information can also become Physical, and has proposed experiments to test the theory.
I apologize, if I'm going off on a tangent from your OP. But I immediately saw the potential for combining your key notion of Cohesion (unity ; bonding ; continuity ; integration ; wholeness) with my notion of the essential inter-relating role of Information*3 (both physical & mental) in the universe. Those invisible, but logical, relationships are what makes Quantum theory seem spooky, when viewed as simply a mindless machine. The potential for Mind was in the material world from the beginning. It just needed to be cohered (squeezed ; channeled ; condensed) into a sentient form of Energy : e.g. Technology.
PS__With Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" in mind, I have proposed that the cosmic constant "C" linking Energy & Mass is not just a meaningless abstract ratio, but defines*4 the relationship between Energy & Matter with specific information; like a setting on a dial.
*1. Intention : In billiards, the intention of the pool-shooter is what makes the difference between random scattering of the opening shot, and the subsequent non-random placing of balls in pre-specified pockets.
*2. Setup : like corralling horses, the wide-open terrain transforms into a fenced-in enclosure, as intended by horse-riding humans
*3. Information : (noun) data ; (verb) to transform ; to create meaning in a mind.
Note -- in its active form (to enform) I spell it with an "E" to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.
*4. To Define : to delimit ; to identify essential qualities (definition is a form of information)
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
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" or "Cooperation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Cosmic Constant : This ratio is usually denoted by ΩΛ and is estimated to be 0.6889±0.0056, according to results published by the Planck Collaboration in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Note -- "Hawking proposed that the cosmological constant is probably zero in quantum cosmology". Its closeness to Zero may explain why the expansion of the universe is so finely balanced between Eternal Inflation & Eventual Collapse.
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
The mind and mental processes
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/724665
So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are.
And please - no discussion of consciousness experience or awareness. — T Clark
↪Enrique , in The Physics of Consciousness thread*1 is also pursuing a physical explanation for how the mind works, without assuming any non-physical contributions. His theory is based on a technical concept of "Cohesion", which could be imagined as a novel physical force, but that I interpret in terms of "Holism" or "Systems Theory". However, both of those alternative approaches to Reductionism are more rational than empirical, hence more philosophical than scientific.
Anyway, it seems that excluding the non-physical aspect of mental processes runs into a blank wall on the Quantum level. There, "business-as-usual-biology" becomes logically fuzzy, mathematically uncertain, and physically unpredictable, as we approach the foundations of reality. Ironically, there is no there there.
So, the only way I see to find our way through the sub-atomic fog is to make use of a semi-physical tool : Information --- found in nature in three forms : energy, matter, mind. I agree that the mental functions of the brain are "not magical". But they are Meaningful ; which is inherently a "conscious experience or awareness".
*1. The Physics of Consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/724342
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/724665
So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are.
And please - no discussion of consciousness experience or awareness. — T Clark
↪Enrique , in The Physics of Consciousness thread*1 is also pursuing a physical explanation for how the mind works, without assuming any non-physical contributions. His theory is based on a technical concept of "Cohesion", which could be imagined as a novel physical force, but that I interpret in terms of "Holism" or "Systems Theory". However, both of those alternative approaches to Reductionism are more rational than empirical, hence more philosophical than scientific.
Anyway, it seems that excluding the non-physical aspect of mental processes runs into a blank wall on the Quantum level. There, "business-as-usual-biology" becomes logically fuzzy, mathematically uncertain, and physically unpredictable, as we approach the foundations of reality. Ironically, there is no there there.
So, the only way I see to find our way through the sub-atomic fog is to make use of a semi-physical tool : Information --- found in nature in three forms : energy, matter, mind. I agree that the mental functions of the brain are "not magical". But they are Meaningful ; which is inherently a "conscious experience or awareness".
*1. The Physics of Consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/724342
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
I don't see the ideas I've described as reductionist at all. If they seem that way, it's probably because I cut off chunks to highlight the aspects I find particularly interesting. — T Clark
By "reductionism", I'm referring to the method of Atomism : dissect the material word far enough down to its foundations, and you will find atoms of Mind. Scientists have been using such methods for centuries, but still have not found the the basic building block of Mind (ideas ; knowledge ; awareness). Yet, they are still looking for the elusive "ghost in the machine". At least, Enrique is looking for a whole system (Cohesion ; Integration), not a sub-Planck-scale bit of matter (Atom).
Atoms of Mind: The "Ghost in the Machine" Materializes
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 007-1097-9
Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think? :
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -to-think/
By "reductionism", I'm referring to the method of Atomism : dissect the material word far enough down to its foundations, and you will find atoms of Mind. Scientists have been using such methods for centuries, but still have not found the the basic building block of Mind (ideas ; knowledge ; awareness). Yet, they are still looking for the elusive "ghost in the machine". At least, Enrique is looking for a whole system (Cohesion ; Integration), not a sub-Planck-scale bit of matter (Atom).
Atoms of Mind: The "Ghost in the Machine" Materializes
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 007-1097-9
Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think? :
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -to-think/
Re: TPF : Physics of Consciousness
I made a mistake. I stuck my nose into the quantum effects on thinking trap when I didn't have to. I should have kept my mouth shut. That's not what this thread is about. It's about scientifically supported ways of thinking about mental processes not including consciousness. — T Clark
Oh, I see! You are interested in Neurobiology instead of Psychology -- neural nets & nodes instead of meanings & feelings. Apparently, you have a novel philosophical angle on that topic -- using plumbing metaphors -- that has not already been covered by Neuroscientists, who normally use flow charts & wiring diagrams. Unfortunately, by referring to "Mind" instead of "Brain", you opened the door to metaphysical philosophical concepts, instead of physical engineering diagrams.
I apologize, if my link to Enrique's posts has deflected your thread off-course. But I thought his expressed intention was similar to yours : The Physics of Consciousness. Maybe he sees a broader scope for Physics than you do. Even so, he also felt, at first, that my inclusion of Quantum and Information theory was off-topic. I suppose that's because he was thinking of "mental phenomena" in terms of classical Physical Phenomena : visually observable things and events.
However, as the OP expressed it, Mind is a continuous "process" (movie), not a single thing or event (snapshot). And ongoing processes cannot be observed via the physical senses. We only know Change by means of the the eye-of-the-mind, Reason, which cognizes (sees) invisible relationships between things & events. Yet, Cognition is not itself a material object, or a string of events, but something more ethereal : awareness, or as Damasio put it : "the feeling of what happens".
Consequently, trying to explain "mental processes" in terms of physical events seems to be a category error. But Shannon inadvertently gave us a clue to the Mind, when he applied the traditional word for the intangible contents of Mind, Information, to the coded data of computers. But those codes (strings of 1s & 0s) are merely symbols for meanings, such as "something" or "nothing". And meanings & feelings are hard to represent in still-shot graphic diagrams. Which is why philosophers and theoretical scientists resort to fanciful Analogies & Metaphors.
Neural engineering is an emerging interdisciplinary field of research that uses engineering techniques to investigate the function and manipulate the behavior of the central or peripheral nervous systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... ngineering
NEUROMORPHIC ANALOG IMPLEMENTATION OF NEURAL ENGINEERING
627221_Thumb_400.jpg
Oh, I see! You are interested in Neurobiology instead of Psychology -- neural nets & nodes instead of meanings & feelings. Apparently, you have a novel philosophical angle on that topic -- using plumbing metaphors -- that has not already been covered by Neuroscientists, who normally use flow charts & wiring diagrams. Unfortunately, by referring to "Mind" instead of "Brain", you opened the door to metaphysical philosophical concepts, instead of physical engineering diagrams.
I apologize, if my link to Enrique's posts has deflected your thread off-course. But I thought his expressed intention was similar to yours : The Physics of Consciousness. Maybe he sees a broader scope for Physics than you do. Even so, he also felt, at first, that my inclusion of Quantum and Information theory was off-topic. I suppose that's because he was thinking of "mental phenomena" in terms of classical Physical Phenomena : visually observable things and events.
However, as the OP expressed it, Mind is a continuous "process" (movie), not a single thing or event (snapshot). And ongoing processes cannot be observed via the physical senses. We only know Change by means of the the eye-of-the-mind, Reason, which cognizes (sees) invisible relationships between things & events. Yet, Cognition is not itself a material object, or a string of events, but something more ethereal : awareness, or as Damasio put it : "the feeling of what happens".
Consequently, trying to explain "mental processes" in terms of physical events seems to be a category error. But Shannon inadvertently gave us a clue to the Mind, when he applied the traditional word for the intangible contents of Mind, Information, to the coded data of computers. But those codes (strings of 1s & 0s) are merely symbols for meanings, such as "something" or "nothing". And meanings & feelings are hard to represent in still-shot graphic diagrams. Which is why philosophers and theoretical scientists resort to fanciful Analogies & Metaphors.
Neural engineering is an emerging interdisciplinary field of research that uses engineering techniques to investigate the function and manipulate the behavior of the central or peripheral nervous systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... ngineering
NEUROMORPHIC ANALOG IMPLEMENTATION OF NEURAL ENGINEERING
627221_Thumb_400.jpg
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests