TPF : Consciousness a form of Energy

[Gnomon]

You seem gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow. — Nils Loc

Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.

Nobel Physicist and Philosophy basher, Richard Feyman felt the same frustration with the non-classical & counter-intuitive & non-classical Quantum aspects of the foundation of reality. That's why he advised his students to just "shut-up and calculate"*1. The "metaphysical implications" are too philosophical for mechanical physicists, and apparently for some TPF posters. But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals?

*1. Calculate but don't shut-up :
'Shut up and calculate' does a disservice to quantum physics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calc ... -mechanics

[Gnomon]

So much grandiosity. — wonderer1

Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?

It's all too common for believers in A> a natural world of Matter & Mechanics to react negatively to the notion B> of a cultural world of Minds & Memes & Mathematics. The A>, "commonsense", worldview is that of Newton in the 17th century, and the latter B> "erudite" non-sense view was derived from the 20th century science of fundamental sub-atomic physics. Which is more impressive?

Note that I didn't use the taboo word "quantum", since it is too often associated with "bullsh*t" on this forum. There's a new book out now : Quantum Bullshit, by Chris Ferrie. It discusses "profound sounding quantum nonsense" such as Quantum consciousness & Quantum love & Quantum quackery & Quantum veganism. But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"

The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". For example, Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with massive Matter, implying a kind of transubstantiation*2. Then, quantum pioneer Heisenberg turned the microscope around to point at the mind of the observer*3. And John A. Wheeler noted the relationship between mental Information and material Mass*4.

Unfortunately, some religious people were quick to interpret those mind-related concepts in sublime terms, to support their supernatural-soul beliefs. But, anti-religious people were just as quick to damn scientifically practical foundational physics by association with such unrealistic "weirdos". Isn't there a middle-ground between those extremes?


*1. Scientific Grandiosity :
The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albe ... ein_112012
Note --- Information theory, combined with Quantum theory, is beginning to condense all of Physics down to a single concept : Mathematics (logic ; ratios ; relationships ; fields). In other words : Energy. Which is the causal Power to Enform, not just Material from Potential, but also Life from Matter, and Mind from living organism. It's all a single procession of en-formation. Isn't that grand!?

*2. Exactly what does E = mc2 mean? :
The equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence relationship. Before Einstein's radical thoughts, mass and energy were thought to be very different things.
https://www.uu.edu › dept › physics › scienceguys

*3. Uncertainty Principle :
The Heisenberg principle is an epistemological lack of information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... eisenberg/
Note --- In this case, Information consists of meaningful & useful ideas in a mind.

*4 Matter from Information :
One clear consequence of “it from bit” is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. “I think [Wheeler] was very radical,” says Zeilinger. “He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from- ... and-wrong/
Note --- Pardon the hyperbole. As he explained later, TAW did not mean that a single human mind could create a physical cosmos by an act of thought. He was noting the much more modest creative act of producing an idea about reality in the mind : in the sense of "to realize".

PS___Ooops. Was that too radical or profound for you?

Banno's law : the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it.

↪Benj96

[Gnomon]

Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either. — Nils Loc

Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself.


The Socratic Method: How To Think For Yourself "
The Socratic approach involves participants in a process of critical thinking and self-examination as opposed to providing knowledge in a simple or didactic manner.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com › stoic-blog › the-s...

Didactic : In the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way.

[Gnomon]

The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious. How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous? — Nils Loc

A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.

Energy itself is not a material object, but merely the idea of Causation, inferred from observations of changes in matter. The ancient Greeks used the analogy of an ideal invisible worker to give us the idea of what Energy is. A modern, but still enigmatic, metaphor for "Energy" is stated in terms of "information regimes"*5. I'll leave you to ponder that one.

There's too many logical leaps -- for a forum post -- between pre-Big-Bang Potential Energy*6, and the eventual emergence of living creatures with rational minds. However, my Information-based thesis attempted to delineate those steps. But I still haven't yet covered all of the material objections to equating Mind with Energy. So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. I'm not trying to harass materialists, though. These forum posts are the means by which I continue to use contrary opinions to help me develop my personal understanding of the relationship between Energy, Matter and Mind.

It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. But modern sub-atomic physics was forced to do just that, in order to make sense of its paradoxical observations. And, a century later, we are still grappling with the counter-intuitive implications of philosophical Physics.

PS___Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.


*1. Photons as Carriers of Energy :
In conventional physics, the photon absorbed or released is nothing more than a quantum of pure energy.
https://www.universeofparticles.com/pho ... of-energy/

*2. Does light have mass? :
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physi ... _mass.html

*3. What is pure energy? :
There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/phys ... is-energy/
Note --- That's because "purity" is an ideal concept, not a real thing. Yet the concept does "exist" as a mental model : perfection uncontaminated by matter.

*4. Is mathematics a mental construct? :
Snapper (1979), in making sense of the intuitionist approach, defines mathematics as “the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other” (p. 210). In effect, mathematics has to be constructed to exist and cannot exist independently of the mind that constructs it.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/course ... eps/327692

*5. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

*6. Singularity : sometimes conceived as a not-yet-executed computer program
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-big-bang

↪Benj96

[Gnomon]

You overlooked the part where people equate consciousness with working physical brains. If we started performing brain surgery on you, we might be able to knock out everything associated with your philosophical theory. — Nils Loc

You missed the part where I never denied the contribution of a physical substrate to the production of consciousness. Mind is the function of Brain.

My thesis is not what you think it is. It's merely a scientific update of an ancient philosophical notion. And it's based on Information & Quantum Science, not a recycling of traditional Idealism.

In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is just one form of Generic Information (e.g. Platonic Form) ; Energy is another form ; Brain is another form ; and Consciousness is merely a recent innovation after 14 billion years of evolutionary computation. Those statements won't make sense to you until you can get past your subconscious preconceptions

So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. — Gnomon
I'm still lost as to why you don't think it's a false dichotomy. It is parsimonious/orthodox to conclude minds need physical materials to emerge in the universe and to do work. Where any work could possibly occur, you can apply the concept of energy. — Nils Loc

As I noted above, your "dichotomy" is not a part of the Enformationism thesis ; apparently it is a part of your preconception of the Mind/Body duality*1. My thesis is ultimately a Substance Monism -- a la Spinoza*2 -- postulating a single universal Substance/Essence -- a la Plato*3.

PS___Note the colon (:) between Mind & Energy above. As a logic symbol it indicates an inter-relationship, not an either/or dichotomy, as would be implied by a slash symbol (/). Another name for my philosophy is "BothAnd"*4.
PPS___Thanks for the challenge though. It helps me to understand the many ways that a novel (or unfamiliar) concept can be mis-interpreted.


*1. Mind-body Dualism :
Mind and body dualism represents the metaphysical stance that mind and body are two distinct substances, each with a different essential nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115289/

*2. Substance Monism :
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

*3. Form Monism :
Plato's theory of Forms is a form of monism because it posits the existence of a single, unified reality that underlies all of existence. While other forms of idealism or monism may posit multiple levels or aspects of reality, Plato's theory emphasizes the essential unity of the world of Forms as the true reality.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Platos-th ... ism-monism

*4. BothAnd Principle :
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires 'skin in the game" to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

The lowest level of data (bits) is fundamental, but not the representation of it. — Nils Loc

Yes!

But what is a "Bit" made of? Is the relationship between 1 & 0 a material object, or a mathematical ratio? John A. Wheeler's 1989 It from Bit hypothesis, assumed that Information was the fundamental element of the world, and matter was just one form of the essential basis of reality (Platonic Form)*1. That radical notion inspired several young physicists in the 21st century to propose mathematical models of the universe, implying that matter is merely an evolved form of essential mathematics*2. These counter-intuitive conjectures are closer to speculative Philosophy than to physical Science. They are not empirically provable, but provide snack-food for hypothetical thought.

Math itself is essentially the Logical structure of the physical universe. And where does Rational Logic find its highest expression? In dumb Matter or in intelligent Minds? The human mind has evolved the unique talent of creating imaginary representations (signs ; symbols ; models) of material things and their inter-relationships (logical structure ; gestalts). And the fundamental element of Information theory (bit) is itself a mathematical ratio : a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% (nothing to everything) : a statistical (rational) relationship, not a real particle of matter : Informationism not Materialism.

So, maybe ↪Benj96could reword his OP : "what is it like to be a Bit?"


*1. Theory of forms :
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Theory_of_forms

*2. What is the holographic Universe theory simplified?
A holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-uni ... a-hologram
Note --- The world is probably not an illusion perpetrated by a great magician. It's just generic Information creating both Mind and Matter by means of the natural computation we call Evolution.

Units of Information :
The basic unit of information is called bit. It's a short form for binary digit. It takes only two values, 0 or 1. All other units of information are derived from the bit.
https://devopedia.org/units-of-information

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -5777-9_21

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-informa ... osmos.html

Information as a basic property of the universe
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... formation/

[Gnomon]

And the fundamental element of Information theory (bit) is itself a mathematical ratio : a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% (nothing to everything) — Gnomon
Oh my Gelos. Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I just got off work, so I'd appreciate it if you could take care of that yourself. — wonderer1

I'm sorry that "you have no idea what I'm talking about". Maybe praying to Gelos will help. At least you might get a laugh out of it.

If prayer doesn't work, maybe a little Google invocation of statistical Information probability will clarify the meaning of those little 1s & 0s : the fractional degree of certainty of a communication.


Information theory :
A key measure in information theory is entropy. Entropy quantifies the amount of uncertainty
involved in the value of a random variable or the outcome of a random process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Entropy (information theory) :
In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. . . .
The information content, also called the surprisal or self-information, of an event E E is a function which increases as the probability p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} of an event decreases. When p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 1, the surprisal of the event is low, but if p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 0, the surprisal of the event is high. This relationship is described by the function
fc37a9cb4caca412cb5ed13edb3fef3d40e78f9e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_( ... on_theory)

Experimental Uncertainty :
Percent uncertainty is fractional uncertainty expressed as a percent, i.e. fractional uncertainty multiplied by 100.
https://www.bates.edu/physics-astronomy ... ainty1.pdf
Note --- If the technical definitions above are above your pay grade, a simpler analogy might help : The uncertainty of Information can be expressed as percentages ranging from Impossible (0%) to absolutely certain (100%). Or merely a probability ratio ranging from 0% (impossible) to 100% (actual).

[Gnomon]

Assuming you really do know what you are talking about, you lack a principal of charity. . . . Why don't we need to study physics or information theory to understand your philosophy? — Nils Loc

Have you noticed the uncharitable ridicule that has been directed toward ↪Benj96 and Gnomon, for daring to ask questions that question the material foundations of Consciousness? Materialism/Physicalism/Realism seems to be the most common ideology on this forum. So, Benj and I may be unwelcome interlopers in a clique of back-slapping believers, who give thumbs-up for good gotchas, not for good reasoning. Usually, the animosity is vaguely concealed under a veneer of science ; for example applying the Dunning-Kruger label to those they want to portray as ignorant idiots. I think Benj and I have been as charitable as possible in view of the mean-spirited ad hominem attacks.

Actually, it's usually those who don't like the meta-physical (mental) implications of Quantum & Information theories who bring up the question of empirical evidence. And non-classical quantum physics is the source of the puzzling empirical evidence that forced the quantum pioneers to drag sentient Observers & intellectual Information into their equations. Besides, the topic of this thread implied the "strange bedfellows" of Physical Energy and Mental Feelings : "Energy does a lot of things; Heat, electricity, chemicals, light, magnetism, nuclear, potential etc." Yet his actual question was not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?" So, Gnomon brought in some philosophical "evidence" --- including Information Theory --- pointing to the equation of Consciousness with Energy.

Please note that it was the uncharitable posters who insisted on physical evidence and "physical brains" as irreducible necessity for Consciousness. And who ridiculed the relevance of abstract statistical math to Information Bits. Ridicule is facile*2 denunciation, not a philosophical argument. You said that, unlike the Dunning-Kruger labelers, you are "assuming" that I know what I'm talking about. If so, why not take the brief*3 references to Physics, Math, and Information Theory seriously? Notice that I'm not forcing you to read abstruse scientific articles. The links are there for those who are interested enough to look into the information behind Information theory and Consciousness studies. I am not an expert on those sciences, but I have taken the time to read & ponder their philosophical implications.

Ironically, those who were taught Linguistic Philosophy in college may be baffled by the technical language of quantum physics and information mathematics. If so, it would be more charitable to withhold commentary, instead of displaying their incomprehension in passive-aggressive language.

PS___ In other threads, on topics related to Consciousness, I have been dismissively labeled an anti-science New Ager --- despite links to scientists, not to gurus. So, I get it from both sides : too-much Science on one hand, and Luddite on another. Does that mean I'm somewhere in the middle? Philosopher, for example.

*1. Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

*2. A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness :
Consciousness is not a phenomenon that comes from physics (as it is conceived but how to conceive it otherwise?)
Consciousness is a metaphysical substance. It is the mystery of what is being as opposed to what is thing.
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-co ... ess-21222/
Note --- Although the source of this clip is a Neuroscience study, it seems to be mostly a philosophical analysis of arguments over the last century. You don't have to read the article ; just take the brief, non-technical, excerpt for what it's worth.

*3. Quote from this thread :
↪Benj96's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity.
Note --- The link in the post gives a capsule definition of a complex & counter-intuitive concept, that originated with a quantum physicist, and has been debated by scientists & philosophers over the last century. If you are not interested in such topical "evidence" just ignore it.

[Gnomon]

That's a lot of yammering to say that you still haven't learned what a bit is. — wonderer1

OK. So what is your yammer-free definition of a "bit", in the context of this thread, questioning the relationship between Energy & Consciousness?

PS___Shannon's definition deliberately omitted the meaning of a bit to the analog brain of the conscious receiver of a communication, in favor of utility for processing in a non-conscious digital computer. If you merely parrot Shannon's yes/no definition, I'll know you missed the point of this thread.

[Gnomon]

I'm not attacking you, just doubting. Cheers. — Nils Loc

No worries mate. I wasn't talking about you being hostile. However,↪wonderer1's labeling of my position on Consciousness as a "New Age" religion, is typical of the aggressive defense of an anti-religion & anti-metaphysics world-view. My personal take on the Mind/Body controversy is indeed Meta-Physical and Philosophical, but I avoid bringing Religion into it. So, his attacks on a Straw Man completely miss their target.

For you, I was just trying to explain why I always seem to be on the defensive --- swatting at gnats --- in threads on metaphysical topics like this one. Actually, I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to refine my own understanding of such controversial subjects as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. And my hat's off to ↪Benj96for coming up with a novel philosophical approach to the relationship between world-causing Energy & world-modeling Consciousness. It points upward toward eternal First Principles, not down to unstable ever-changing Matter. Apparently, doctrinaire Materialists equate Metaphysics with dogmatic theistic Religion, instead of open-minded agnostic Philosophy*1.

The topic of this thread is right down my alley*2, because both Quantum Physics and Information Theory have pointed toward a Monistic worldview, in which everything in the world, including Minds & Bodies, consists of evolved configurations (forms) of a Single Primordial First Cause, that Cosmologists are still looking for. But the scientific search runs into a brick wall at the Planck Time*4, leaving us with an ellipsis of conjecture about the time before Time*5. I don't expect the average TPF poster to be familiar with the scientific & philosophical speculation on the Big Before. So I try to patiently force-feed a few bits & pieces of the Cosmos & Consciousness puzzle into mundane materialistic minds. Sadly, you can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him think.


*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility. ___Wiki

*2. Quote from OP :
Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both?
Note --- In my thesis the organizer of matter is something like a creative computer program, which I call EnFormAction (energy + pattern + causation). Materialism takes malleable Matter as elemental. But my thesis takes causal & organizing Energy as fundamental.

*3. First Cause : Potential, not Spiritual

*4. Big Bang models back to Planck time :
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... lanck.html
Note --- That primordial Force was not kinetic Energy in the modern sense, but something like Generic Cause of Change, which I call EnFormAction, combining the act of causation with the organized forms of matter that result. You won't find that term in textbooks.

*5. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
So General Relativity has not been able to predict (or retrodict) what happens before, or how this process really began. . . . .
However in the last few years, several mathematical cosmologists have taken seriously the idea that there was a Pre-Big Bang.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-big-bang