"An obvious question is whether all information has a phenomenal aspect. One possibility is that we need a further constraint on the fundamental theory, indicating just what sort of information has a phenomenal aspect. The other possibility is that there is no such constraint. If not, then experience is much more widespread than we might have believed, as information is everywhere." ___Chalmers quote — Apustimelogist
This quote from Chalmer's essay on the "hard problem of consciousness" touches on a key issue of our philosophical debates. He asks whether Information is both phenomenal and noumenal. And my general answer is Yes. But, the phenomenal aspects are "easy", because our physical senses can detect them. So, it's the noumenal aspects that we argue about. My position is that Information is both Physical and Mental. But discussing mental stuff is like nailing jello to the wall, it's inherently squishy and hard to pin down.
Perhaps the most contentious feature of Consciousness is its experiential quality. He implies that "experience" --- as a form of generic information --- "is everywhere". And that sounds like Panpsychism, with the implication that even an atom has awareness of its environment. Hence, All-Mind-Everywhere-All-The-Time would be true. However, that notion implies that the world is not hierarchical, and that we cannot or should-not discriminate between one form of information and another.
Therefore, if you define "experience" as a "feeling" in the human sense, I would have to disagree with Panpsychism, but not on materialistic grounds. That's because human interactions are infinitely more complex & multi-valent than atomic exchanges of positive/negative electron valences. So, although similar in one way, meaningful-feelings & energy-sharing are different in so many other ways. Electron bonding of atoms is phenomenal, hence observable by empirical methods. But sharing feelings is noumenal, and knowable only by the emotional inference that we call Empathy or Sympathy. Therefore, I would say that atoms are not sentient beings, and that Panpsychism is an over-generalization.
TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I'm still on this information-consciousness relation.
Our brain specific information has complete access to our consciousness and vice versa.
So if you don't understand this of course understanding consciousness is going to be hard.
How can you propose information is everywhere when it's just a projection of your mind. Of course it's going to be a hard problem because you have set up the problem wrong. — Mark Nyquist
In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information. If you don't understand, or agree with, that essential relationship, the Hard Problem will remain an apples & oranges conundrum.
I'm not sure how to interpret the assertion that "information has complete access to consciousness". But if bits of Information and holistic Consciousness are interrelated, like bricks and houses, then they are not just "accessible", but also intertwined, perhaps inseparable. And it's the part/whole relationship that will soften the "hard" problem, which is due to the assumption of fundamental difference.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "information . . . is just a projection of your mind". But, the thesis is based on the assumption that Information is much more than just an imaginary something. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter (E=MC^2), the thesis equates Information with Energy, Matter & Mind (I=EMM). If so, it is everywhere and everything.
Enformationism is a philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance*1 of everything in the universe. I know that sounds absurd from the perspective of Materialism, but quite a few scientists are beginning to find evidence of that equivalence*2.
PS___ Your assertion that Information has "complete access" to consciousness is coincidental, because I just read an article on The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Which postulates that, due to the divided brain, humans had to learn how to communicate between the verbal/rational brain and the intuitive/emotional brain. Julian Jaynes proposed that until the "EGO" (self) gained conscious control over the "ID" (non-self), people thought their subconscious urges were messages from gods. I don't know if it's literally true that before 3000BC humans were all schizophrenic, but metaphorically it makes sense. The rational linguistic part of the Mind is what we usually think of as Consciousness (Dr. Jekyll). But the emotional non-verbal half is what we call Sub-Conscious (Mr. Hyde). And, due to incomplete access, that inner beast is what we are always struggling to control.
*1. What did Aristotle mean by substance? ;
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/
Note --- Vopson's "conjecture" is a physical hypothesis, while my thesis is meta-physical. Hence, my Information is not just a "state of matter", but also a "state of mind".
Our brain specific information has complete access to our consciousness and vice versa.
So if you don't understand this of course understanding consciousness is going to be hard.
How can you propose information is everywhere when it's just a projection of your mind. Of course it's going to be a hard problem because you have set up the problem wrong. — Mark Nyquist
In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information. If you don't understand, or agree with, that essential relationship, the Hard Problem will remain an apples & oranges conundrum.
I'm not sure how to interpret the assertion that "information has complete access to consciousness". But if bits of Information and holistic Consciousness are interrelated, like bricks and houses, then they are not just "accessible", but also intertwined, perhaps inseparable. And it's the part/whole relationship that will soften the "hard" problem, which is due to the assumption of fundamental difference.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "information . . . is just a projection of your mind". But, the thesis is based on the assumption that Information is much more than just an imaginary something. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter (E=MC^2), the thesis equates Information with Energy, Matter & Mind (I=EMM). If so, it is everywhere and everything.
Enformationism is a philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance*1 of everything in the universe. I know that sounds absurd from the perspective of Materialism, but quite a few scientists are beginning to find evidence of that equivalence*2.
PS___ Your assertion that Information has "complete access" to consciousness is coincidental, because I just read an article on The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Which postulates that, due to the divided brain, humans had to learn how to communicate between the verbal/rational brain and the intuitive/emotional brain. Julian Jaynes proposed that until the "EGO" (self) gained conscious control over the "ID" (non-self), people thought their subconscious urges were messages from gods. I don't know if it's literally true that before 3000BC humans were all schizophrenic, but metaphorically it makes sense. The rational linguistic part of the Mind is what we usually think of as Consciousness (Dr. Jekyll). But the emotional non-verbal half is what we call Sub-Conscious (Mr. Hyde). And, due to incomplete access, that inner beast is what we are always struggling to control.
*1. What did Aristotle mean by substance? ;
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/
Note --- Vopson's "conjecture" is a physical hypothesis, while my thesis is meta-physical. Hence, my Information is not just a "state of matter", but also a "state of mind".
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I don't know that anyone believes an atom has awareness of it's environment, and I don't think Chalmers is implying it. — Patterner
Chalmers seems to think that "everything is conscious" in some sense of "thing" and "consciousness". But I doubt that he believes that atoms are little beings chatting amongst themselves about their feelings. It's that "some sense" that needs to be explained. In my own thesis, I use abstract "Information" instead of personal "Psyche", partly in order to avoid the absurdity of atomic awareness.
David Chalmers, Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism :
I present an argument for panpsychism: the thesis that everything is conscious, or at least that fundamental physical entities are conscious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAPAP-17
Note --- I haven't read the article, so I don't know how he defines "fundamental physical entities". If you have time, please investigate and let me know.
Chalmers seems to think that "everything is conscious" in some sense of "thing" and "consciousness". But I doubt that he believes that atoms are little beings chatting amongst themselves about their feelings. It's that "some sense" that needs to be explained. In my own thesis, I use abstract "Information" instead of personal "Psyche", partly in order to avoid the absurdity of atomic awareness.
David Chalmers, Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism :
I present an argument for panpsychism: the thesis that everything is conscious, or at least that fundamental physical entities are conscious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAPAP-17
Note --- I haven't read the article, so I don't know how he defines "fundamental physical entities". If you have time, please investigate and let me know.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness. — Patterner
My only problem with Chalmer's philosophy of Panpsychism is in his word choice. He uses "consciousness" to label his fundamental element. But I prefer to give that prime role to a "primitive precursor to consciousness". I reserve "Consciousness" for the rare feature of the universe that only emerged from zillions of physical interactions (computations) after billions of Earth-year cycles. The big "C" is a recent innovation of evolution.
So, I propose that ubiquitous Generic Information (Platonic Form) was the essential element of everything at the inception of our universe. Atoms are indeed physical forms of Information, but Mind is a late-emerging meta-physical form of the universal Power to Enform (to create novel structures & patterns). In my thesis, physical Energy is a form of causal Information. But this is an unconventional & philosophical use of the term, that Shannon defined more narrowly, for a specific engineering problem.
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".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness. — Patterner
My only problem with Chalmer's philosophy of Panpsychism is in his word choice. He uses "consciousness" to label his fundamental element. But I prefer to give that prime role to a "primitive precursor to consciousness". I reserve "Consciousness" for the rare feature of the universe that only emerged from zillions of physical interactions (computations) after billions of Earth-year cycles. The big "C" is a recent innovation of evolution.
So, I propose that ubiquitous Generic Information (Platonic Form) was the essential element of everything at the inception of our universe. Atoms are indeed physical forms of Information, but Mind is a late-emerging meta-physical form of the universal Power to Enform (to create novel structures & patterns). In my thesis, physical Energy is a form of causal Information. But this is an unconventional & philosophical use of the term, that Shannon defined more narrowly, for a specific engineering problem.
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".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I believe i have seen Chalmers reference (perhaps in that 2022 Yale talk?) IIT as a framework for how you could have different 'levels' of consciousness essentially mirroring the functionality of the 'being'. Vague, but a hint at a direction. — AmadeusD
Yes. There seems to be a hierarchy of consciousness among living beings, from single-cell organisms to cetaceans. But personally, I would prefer to restrict the term "Consciousness" to living organisms, for which the notion of awareness seems appropriate. The general direction of the universe appears to begin with non-being stuff that evolves toward that which we now call Beings instead of Things.
Yes. There seems to be a hierarchy of consciousness among living beings, from single-cell organisms to cetaceans. But personally, I would prefer to restrict the term "Consciousness" to living organisms, for which the notion of awareness seems appropriate. The general direction of the universe appears to begin with non-being stuff that evolves toward that which we now call Beings instead of Things.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I'm not sure that I = EMM is an equation. — Mark Nyquist
Sorry, that was tongue-in-cheek. I didn't mean for it to be taken literally.
It's a verbal equation, not a mathematical equation.
However, since you asked : How about phi (Φ) for Information and psi (Ψ) for Mind?
{ Φ = E x M x Ψ } information is composed of Energy, Matter, and Mind.
All are non-dimensional values, hence metaphysical/mathematical concepts. So what do they add up to?
Sorry, that was tongue-in-cheek. I didn't mean for it to be taken literally.
It's a verbal equation, not a mathematical equation.
However, since you asked : How about phi (Φ) for Information and psi (Ψ) for Mind?
{ Φ = E x M x Ψ } information is composed of Energy, Matter, and Mind.
All are non-dimensional values, hence metaphysical/mathematical concepts. So what do they add up to?
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
We seem to be in a similar situation: no understanding of physical processes, however complete, explains consciousness. — Art48
Materialists like to belittle the "Hard Problem" by implying that philosophers deny the "obvious" fact that Consciousness is nothing-but a body-control function of material brains. Hence they --- the "un-grounded" thinkers --- complicate a simple situation by insisting on the contribution of immaterial metaphysical things or processes. Perhaps there's some truth to that assessment, but the OP implies that "C" is more-than "physical processes". If so, what is that "more-than"?
I can't deny that "C" seems to be a function of brain operations, just as program solutions are a function of computer operations. But then what is a Function? Is it a> a lump of matter, or b> a series of actions, or c> a mathematical relationship between variables? A Function is not a thing, or a sequence of events, it's an effective (purposeful) correlation of Input & Output. Therefore, I think Consciousness is a goal-oriented function of complex information-processing systems. Moreover, shape-shifting Information can take-on all of those function-facilitating forms --- matter, energy, ratios, etc. So philosophically, "C" is ultimately a function of cosmic operations from Big Bang initiation to the current continually complexifying situation.
For those interested in the relationship between Consciousness and Information, here's a research report from the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity. Among other things, it proposes A> that Mind emerges from Integrated Information systems. Also B> that Consciousness seems to be necessary for individuals in multilevel complex societies (e.g. herd & pack animals, not amoeba). Hence, it serves primarily a social function, not just coordination of body parts. One surprising postulation, though, is C> that it links the emergence of Consciousness to the unification of a dual-hemisphere brain. That's similar to the radical proposal of Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, as I referenced in a post above.
This technical paper seems to agree with the OP, that Consciousness is more-than a simple physical process. For a self-aware being it's infinitely more. As neuroscientist Christof Koch put it : "it's the feeling of life itself".
Information Theory and Consciousness :
We are not conscious simply because we have a large brain, but rather humans have evolved to become conscious when exposed to other conscious humans during a critical phase of their development. That is, first, consciousness is partly a social phenomenon, even though it seems that a main aspect of consciousness is to distinguish a self from others,and second, there were evolutionary reasons for the emergence of consciousness. . . . .
the two halves of the brain are separately conscious, even though only the left hemisphere can express itself verbally.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 39/full#h2
Note --- Frontiers is a peer-reviewed research publisher
↪Mark Nyquist
↪Apustimelogist
↪Wayfarer
↪Patterner
Materialists like to belittle the "Hard Problem" by implying that philosophers deny the "obvious" fact that Consciousness is nothing-but a body-control function of material brains. Hence they --- the "un-grounded" thinkers --- complicate a simple situation by insisting on the contribution of immaterial metaphysical things or processes. Perhaps there's some truth to that assessment, but the OP implies that "C" is more-than "physical processes". If so, what is that "more-than"?
I can't deny that "C" seems to be a function of brain operations, just as program solutions are a function of computer operations. But then what is a Function? Is it a> a lump of matter, or b> a series of actions, or c> a mathematical relationship between variables? A Function is not a thing, or a sequence of events, it's an effective (purposeful) correlation of Input & Output. Therefore, I think Consciousness is a goal-oriented function of complex information-processing systems. Moreover, shape-shifting Information can take-on all of those function-facilitating forms --- matter, energy, ratios, etc. So philosophically, "C" is ultimately a function of cosmic operations from Big Bang initiation to the current continually complexifying situation.
For those interested in the relationship between Consciousness and Information, here's a research report from the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity. Among other things, it proposes A> that Mind emerges from Integrated Information systems. Also B> that Consciousness seems to be necessary for individuals in multilevel complex societies (e.g. herd & pack animals, not amoeba). Hence, it serves primarily a social function, not just coordination of body parts. One surprising postulation, though, is C> that it links the emergence of Consciousness to the unification of a dual-hemisphere brain. That's similar to the radical proposal of Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, as I referenced in a post above.
This technical paper seems to agree with the OP, that Consciousness is more-than a simple physical process. For a self-aware being it's infinitely more. As neuroscientist Christof Koch put it : "it's the feeling of life itself".
Information Theory and Consciousness :
We are not conscious simply because we have a large brain, but rather humans have evolved to become conscious when exposed to other conscious humans during a critical phase of their development. That is, first, consciousness is partly a social phenomenon, even though it seems that a main aspect of consciousness is to distinguish a self from others,and second, there were evolutionary reasons for the emergence of consciousness. . . . .
the two halves of the brain are separately conscious, even though only the left hemisphere can express itself verbally.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 39/full#h2
Note --- Frontiers is a peer-reviewed research publisher
↪Mark Nyquist
↪Apustimelogist
↪Wayfarer
↪Patterner
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1
For me, it is. I view Philosophy as the study of the meta-physical (immaterial) aspects of nature, such as Consciousness. However, I do understand that Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position ( a belief system), in that it is a non-empirical generalization from limited evidence.
For all practical purposes, I am a materialist. But for philosophical endeavors, I am not limited to the evidence of the 5 senses. And I don't deny such immaterial entities as "consciousness, mind, & psychic states". Besides, when scientists make theoretical postulations, they are doing Philosophy, not Science, as distinct categories --- distinguished by their range of evidence.
PS___ Philosophically, I don't categorize forum arguments into the traditional opposing dual divisions of Materialism vs Spiritualism. Instead, I propose a new, more comprehensive & inclusive category, that I call "Enformationism".
Materialism :
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ialism/v-1
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1
For me, it is. I view Philosophy as the study of the meta-physical (immaterial) aspects of nature, such as Consciousness. However, I do understand that Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position ( a belief system), in that it is a non-empirical generalization from limited evidence.
For all practical purposes, I am a materialist. But for philosophical endeavors, I am not limited to the evidence of the 5 senses. And I don't deny such immaterial entities as "consciousness, mind, & psychic states". Besides, when scientists make theoretical postulations, they are doing Philosophy, not Science, as distinct categories --- distinguished by their range of evidence.
PS___ Philosophically, I don't categorize forum arguments into the traditional opposing dual divisions of Materialism vs Spiritualism. Instead, I propose a new, more comprehensive & inclusive category, that I call "Enformationism".
Materialism :
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ialism/v-1
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas
I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.
Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe.
I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.
Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Hence in my opinion, those who believe in a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" misunderstand the purpose of science, and that this hard problem is better understood as being a "Hard Feature of applicable Physics" — sime
I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism.
I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests