Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/352506

What did I misss?
The meaning of "equivocation" and "general definition". — Galuchat

Are you accusing me of lying, or of just being ambiguous? Were my multiple definitions too specific? Unfortunately, a simple definition of Information would not be very informative, and might be misleading, as in Shannon's mathematical abstraction, which omits all qualia & meaning.

That's because Information is not a thing, but everything. Or, as the Information Philosopher put it : "Information is the lingua franca of the universe". If you think my definitions of Information gave Too Much Information (TMI). please don't look at the Information Philosopher website. It will boggle your mind.

Information Philosopher : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/i ... formation/
"Information is neither matter nor energy, although it
needs matter to be embodied and energy to be
communicated. Why should it become the preferred
basis for all philosophy?"

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/352506

Where do you see the connection between Platonic realm of geometry and that of Quantum field? I say it's Aether, — Zelebg

Plato's Ideal Realm of Forms, and the Quantum Field, and the Akashic Field, and the Aether Field are all metaphors for something that is not real or physical, but ideal or metaphysical. In physics, a "field" is a continuum (non-particular empty space) where something can be mathematically defined, even though it can't be seen or touched. That void-vacuum-space is typically defined by an infinite array of mathematical "points" which are completely abstract loci of pure Information. They are all materialistic fantasies of ghostly invisible and intangible entities that exist only in the mind of the "observer".

In Quantum Theory, the field is where Virtual (not quite real) Particles arise from the void. The Aether was imagined by philosophers as almost infinitely diffuse matter of some unknown kind, equivalent to our modern notion of Space. Early physicists proposed a Luminiferous Aether as a medium for light waves to wave in (later abandoned as unnecessary).

All of these places or spaces are imaginary, and can contain almost anything you can imagine. So yes, the Information Field could be described as an "Aether Field". Or as any of the other Field or Plenum metaphors. But like Virtual Particles, the Information bits exist only in potential, until actualized by observation.

Euclidean Point in Geometry : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p5

Aether has structure and dynamics — Zelebg

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure. Math is pure immaterial Information. So any physical field exists by definition, not in terms of matter. I can call the universe an Information Field, which, like a Quantum Field, has the power to convert Virtual Potential into Actual Matter. I know this way of looking at reality is counter-intuitive, but so is queer Quantum Theory, which is the foundation of modern science, and we'll have to get used to it

Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist :
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html.

Electric and magnetic fields can be touched, that's all you ever touch. — Zelebg

You can't touch the immaterial field, but the atoms in your finger are affected by the spooky-action-at-a-distance of force fields. As I mentioned before, scientists often resort to metaphors of the macro world to describe the strangeness of the quantum realm.

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never- ... h-anything

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p5

Phantasies are ok if they give you predictive power, but what do you do with a theory which gives you nothing to measure and no way to confirm? — Zelebg

Quantum Theory has proven to give scientists amazing predictive power. But measurement is a problem, as illustrated by Schrodinger's Cat. What they do, when faced with the Uncertainty Principle, is to run thought experiments (fantasies), where you manipulate Information (ideas) instead of Matter.

Measurement Problem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/352890

Maxwell got his equations based on fluid dynamic of Aether. There is no discussion here, you either do not believe this statement is true or you do not understand what it means. — Zelebg

I don't doubt that Maxwell used the ancient metaphor of Aether, as did Einstein. But searches for tangible evidence have come up empty. Mathematically, the Aether is as real as PI ( 3.14159 ), which has real world applications, despite being an abstract irrational number.

Apparently I don't know what you mean by "aether". A quick Google review of Aether articles finds that it is typically referred to as a "hypothesis", "theory", "proposal", "postulate", "conjecture", but not as a proven fact, that is "beyond discussion".

"From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena had also been modeled utilizing an aether. The most well-known formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin. None of those concepts are considered to be viable by the scientific community today"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

"Also known as ether, the definition of the aether from dictionary.com is… “a hypothetical substance supposed to occupy all space, postulated to account for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space”".
http://energywavetheory.com/explanations/aether/
This article also says "the aether exists", and has a video to prove it. It even claims that Aether "consists of tiny granules", as in the ancient theory of Atomism. But this seems to be a minority position among scientists.

"The term “aether” (or “ether”) lives on as a colloquial expression in the West, an abstract idea of the intangible void. Certain traditional cultures still consider aether the fifth element, and it plays prominently in the esoteric worlds of magic, mysticism, and the supernatural."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... 30/aether/

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/352890

is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg

This thread has strayed off-topic, from defining Consciousness to arguing about the existence of Aether, and other peripheral issues. But, I'd like to play around with the original question about Feelings.

I'll begin by observing that "Consciousness" seems to be a necessary function of living organisms. Or as Christoph Koch put it : "the feeling of life itself". Awareness begins as "feeling" in its literal, physical form, as a sense of touch or taste. Put out “feelers”, and receive feedback. That physical literal response is then transformed*1 into metaphysical metaphorical "feelings" (representations, symbols), that in turn stimulate physical emotions. Which is how touching is experienced*2 by the toucher. For example, a barely-alive bacterium or paramecium blindly gropes around in its environment as a means to stay alive, to find food and to avoid predators. Its sense of touch is mostly chemical (taste), and the representation of whatever is touched is probably evaluated by analogy : sugar good, acid bad. Without that minimal awareness of its milieu, the cell wouldn't achieve its "purpose" : to live. So, consciousness facilitates a teleological intention : to survive long enough to reproduce.

In effect, consciousness is an extension of Self out into the world. And self-consciousness is like the feedback of touching yourself. So, Consciousness is how living agents achieve their basic purpose. And Self-consciousness is how they achieve a higher purpose : to represent Self as an agent in its sensory model of the world. Hence, the process of conscious feeling is an inherent function of the process of living, not an option. You might say that consciousness is what Organism does, and Mind is what Brain does. What they do is create abstract analogous ideal images from information about the concrete real world. Those images are not physical or real, but they are useful and functional. The difference between Life and Non-life is awareness of energy inputs and outputs that motivate and guide the organism toward intrinsic goals, rather than, like billiard balls, by direct action & reaction. Consciousness is how we reach-out and touch the world in imagination.


*1 Transformed : this is the "hard problem" that is addressed by the Enformationism thesis.

*2 Experience : Latin, ex- "out";-peril "trial, test, danger". Living things "try, attempt, reach out" in order to "test" for danger or opportunity.