Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception. — Alkis Piskas
I think you have the right idea, but I have one quibble : physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? Perhaps "Apprehension" (concrete metaphor : to grasp) or "Comprehension (to seize & surround) or maybe even "to Grok" ?
"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper."
To Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning.
TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. — Alkis Piskas
Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).
The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive.
PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest.
*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary
*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders ... zed%20hard)
Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).
The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive.
PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest.
*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary
*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders ... zed%20hard)
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness.
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later? — Alkis Piskas
Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.
Perception is the intake of information, but Conception is the processing of raw data into shareable packages such as Ideas & Words, which can be exported to other conscious beings. So, I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into inter-personal packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture.
For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. But for philosophical analysis of the debatable term "consciousness", I try to make finer distinctions, to avoid the fuzzy boundaries that lead to confusion and acrimony. Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination.
To answer your question : I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. From my post above : "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception".
No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas
Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know).
Plant communication :
Plant communication encompasses communication using volatile organic compounds, electrical signaling, and common mycorrhizal networks between plants and a host of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication
How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? :
The purpose of perception is to convey correct information about our immediate surroundings. Cognition, on the other hand, involves forming beliefs, making decisions and solving problems, on the basis of already existing information. The role of cognition is therefore much more general than that of perception.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle ... sAllowed=y
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later? — Alkis Piskas
Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.
Perception is the intake of information, but Conception is the processing of raw data into shareable packages such as Ideas & Words, which can be exported to other conscious beings. So, I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into inter-personal packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture.
For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. But for philosophical analysis of the debatable term "consciousness", I try to make finer distinctions, to avoid the fuzzy boundaries that lead to confusion and acrimony. Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination.
To answer your question : I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. From my post above : "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception".
No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas
Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know).
Plant communication :
Plant communication encompasses communication using volatile organic compounds, electrical signaling, and common mycorrhizal networks between plants and a host of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication
How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? :
The purpose of perception is to convey correct information about our immediate surroundings. Cognition, on the other hand, involves forming beliefs, making decisions and solving problems, on the basis of already existing information. The role of cognition is therefore much more general than that of perception.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle ... sAllowed=y
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help. — Alkis Piskas
The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2.
*1. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3,000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion – and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/
Note --- I don't take his theory literally, or as authoritative . . . just suggestive of possibilities
*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis
0 --- Pre-Bang Singularity : Pure Potential = Power to Enform (create patterns & structures)
1 --- Big Bang : EnFormAction = Energy + Laws = power to evolve novel patterns from raw Potential
2 --- Plasma : boiling soup of quantum particles with little or no order (chaos)
3 --- Billions of years : Matter = Evolution of macro physical substance (stars) from quantum elements
4 --- Emergence of Earth : Habitat suitable for living organisms (warm pools of protoplasm)
5 --- Emergence of Life : Animation of Matter (single-cell food-seeking amoeba)
6 --- Emergence of Perception (Sentience) : Physical nerves & sensory organs, necessary for motion, foraging & evasion of predators (includes some plants)
7 --- Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)
8 --- Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)
9 --- Emergence of Language : Brains capable of communication (externalized concepts)
10 --- Emergence of Culture : Societies capable of organizing large groups for future goals (man on moon)
Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities
For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.
"Loose lips terminology sinks ships inter-relationships"
3. Concepts of Consciousness
a> Creature Consciousness
b> State consciousness
c> Consciousness as an entity
Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon.
The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2.
*1. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3,000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion – and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/
Note --- I don't take his theory literally, or as authoritative . . . just suggestive of possibilities
*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis
0 --- Pre-Bang Singularity : Pure Potential = Power to Enform (create patterns & structures)
1 --- Big Bang : EnFormAction = Energy + Laws = power to evolve novel patterns from raw Potential
2 --- Plasma : boiling soup of quantum particles with little or no order (chaos)
3 --- Billions of years : Matter = Evolution of macro physical substance (stars) from quantum elements
4 --- Emergence of Earth : Habitat suitable for living organisms (warm pools of protoplasm)
5 --- Emergence of Life : Animation of Matter (single-cell food-seeking amoeba)
6 --- Emergence of Perception (Sentience) : Physical nerves & sensory organs, necessary for motion, foraging & evasion of predators (includes some plants)
7 --- Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)
8 --- Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)
9 --- Emergence of Language : Brains capable of communication (externalized concepts)
10 --- Emergence of Culture : Societies capable of organizing large groups for future goals (man on moon)
Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities
For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.
"Loose lips terminology sinks ships inter-relationships"
3. Concepts of Consciousness
a> Creature Consciousness
b> State consciousness
c> Consciousness as an entity
Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?
I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis.
What Is The Power of Absence? :
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
The patterns that connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/resea ... onnect.pdf
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?
I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis.
What Is The Power of Absence? :
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
The patterns that connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/resea ... onnect.pdf
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas
You might get a better answer from ↪Wayfarer, since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from a Vegetative State?
Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception?
A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . .
Note --- Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? Does it think : "this fly is yummy?" Rhetorical question.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas
You might get a better answer from ↪Wayfarer, since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from a Vegetative State?
Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception?
A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . .
Note --- Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? Does it think : "this fly is yummy?" Rhetorical question.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog. — ucarr
Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago.
Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ... — Alkis Piskas
Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.
Shannon took a word originally associated with human ideas (information), and applied it to physical processes characterized by Uncertainty (ignorance) & Entropy (dissipation). As a pragmatic engineer, he omitted the idealistic mental/metaphysical aspect of Information, which is more like Certainty (knowledge) & Negentropy*2 (organization). His definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own.
In my thesis, I coined the term "Enformationism" to serve as an alternative to older philosophical concepts of Panpsychism, Spiritualism & Materialism. The made-up word "Enformy"*3, was imagined as a philosophical opposite of scientific Entropy : Negentropy. Enformy is a positive & constructive force in the world, while Entropy is negative & destructive. It's based on the notion that EnFormAction (energy + order) is a causal force, and one of its effects was to construct (via gradual evolution) computer-like meat-brains capable of Conscious functions and Self-Awareness. Those neologisms are not scientific or religious terms, but hypothetical philosophical postulations.
The human brain provides command & control functions for the human body. And "experience" (history + memory) is necessary for precise control in the self-interest of the holistic human system in an impersonal world . But, I wouldn't call that necessity "hard evidence" for a super-personal function, such as Cosmic Mind.
*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter. In other words, everything has consciousness.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/p ... cycles-are
Note --- my thesis is based on the notion that Consciousness did evolve from some a priori undeveloped Potential (seed) like mathematical Information (e.g. abstract geometrical relationships & ratios). Consciousness is the ability to interpret such abstract proportions into personal meaning. The unresolved question remains : who or what planted that seed?
*2. Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... erid=99336
*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or causal force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [see post 63 for graph]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- I call Enformy "preternatural" because the Energy & Laws of Nature logically must have preceded the Big Bang, in order to allow for complexifying Evolution instead of dissipative Devolution. I postulate no religious doctrines from that philosophical conjecture into the void of ignorance before the beginning of space-time.
Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.
Shannon took a word originally associated with human ideas (information), and applied it to physical processes characterized by Uncertainty (ignorance) & Entropy (dissipation). As a pragmatic engineer, he omitted the idealistic mental/metaphysical aspect of Information, which is more like Certainty (knowledge) & Negentropy*2 (organization). His definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own.
In my thesis, I coined the term "Enformationism" to serve as an alternative to older philosophical concepts of Panpsychism, Spiritualism & Materialism. The made-up word "Enformy"*3, was imagined as a philosophical opposite of scientific Entropy : Negentropy. Enformy is a positive & constructive force in the world, while Entropy is negative & destructive. It's based on the notion that EnFormAction (energy + order) is a causal force, and one of its effects was to construct (via gradual evolution) computer-like meat-brains capable of Conscious functions and Self-Awareness. Those neologisms are not scientific or religious terms, but hypothetical philosophical postulations.
The human brain provides command & control functions for the human body. And "experience" (history + memory) is necessary for precise control in the self-interest of the holistic human system in an impersonal world . But, I wouldn't call that necessity "hard evidence" for a super-personal function, such as Cosmic Mind.
*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter. In other words, everything has consciousness.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/p ... cycles-are
Note --- my thesis is based on the notion that Consciousness did evolve from some a priori undeveloped Potential (seed) like mathematical Information (e.g. abstract geometrical relationships & ratios). Consciousness is the ability to interpret such abstract proportions into personal meaning. The unresolved question remains : who or what planted that seed?
*2. Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... erid=99336
*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or causal force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [see post 63 for graph]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- I call Enformy "preternatural" because the Energy & Laws of Nature logically must have preceded the Big Bang, in order to allow for complexifying Evolution instead of dissipative Devolution. I postulate no religious doctrines from that philosophical conjecture into the void of ignorance before the beginning of space-time.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr
I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy.
I may-or-may-not-have also written a post on the strange notion of Morphogenesis, as postulated by rogue biologist Rupert Sheldrake, "to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields". Personally, I don't find that idea any weirder than spooky Quantum Field physics, which postulates a universal "field" (cosmic set) of abstract (metaphysical) mathematical information.
Form Fields :
Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain unproven until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
Note --- The language of Quantum Fields and Morphic Fields sound like New Age nonsense, until you look deeper into the reasoning underlying it. But, what does all this gobbledygook have to do with Consciousness?
"The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry information like radio waves." https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
"Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them" https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... made-up-of
"In quantum field theory, the universe's truly elementary entities are fields that fill all space. Particles are localized,resonant excitations of these fields,vibrating like springs in an infinite mattress." https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the- ... -20220126/
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr
I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy.
I may-or-may-not-have also written a post on the strange notion of Morphogenesis, as postulated by rogue biologist Rupert Sheldrake, "to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields". Personally, I don't find that idea any weirder than spooky Quantum Field physics, which postulates a universal "field" (cosmic set) of abstract (metaphysical) mathematical information.
Form Fields :
Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain unproven until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
Note --- The language of Quantum Fields and Morphic Fields sound like New Age nonsense, until you look deeper into the reasoning underlying it. But, what does all this gobbledygook have to do with Consciousness?
"The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry information like radio waves." https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
"Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them" https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... made-up-of
"In quantum field theory, the universe's truly elementary entities are fields that fill all space. Particles are localized,resonant excitations of these fields,vibrating like springs in an infinite mattress." https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the- ... -20220126/
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties. — ucarr
Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.
I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy", but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. The excerpt below, from post 68, briefly summarizes how I viewed those "stages" at the time (2019). Each of the stages is a particular form of Causation (dynamics) with specific applications to Evolution. Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions.
For example, Thermodynamics is what we typically call Energy, which usually flows downhill, from Hot to Cold, and from Potential to Entropy. Morphodynamics focuses on the physical form (superficial shape or topology) of things that have been transformed from one configuration to another, or one species to another. The process of metamorphosis is guided by the constraints of natural Laws. On top of those low-level physical procedures, Teleodynamics focuses on the general & universal changes wrought by the advancement of Causation in the world --- including the Purposes of late-blooming humans.
The "teleo" prefix implies that an apparently purposeful process is aimed at some future state, as-if it is a computer program seeking an answer to Douglas Adam's computer-stumping riddle : "what is God, the Universe, and Everything?" That's a philosophical question, not suitable for digital computers, or even AI-chatbots.
The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind.
Regarding the long-delayed evolution of Self-Conscious beings, an associate of Deacon's, Jeremy Sherman wrote Neither Ghost Nor Machine : The emergence and nature of Selves. He expands on Deacon's hypothetical "AutoGens", as the missing link between physical and biological evolution. "Deacon suggests the autogen as a minimal Kantian Whole where the parts exist for and by means of the whole". So, you might add Holism (metaphysical system-building) to the list of dynamic powers of a maturing universe.
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Life adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. The Life force is not a physical substance though ─ as some envision Spirit, Soul, Chi, Prana, or elan vital, but merely the process of recycling successful patterns of organization. So, what is the ultimate attractor4 toward which all change is directed?
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.
I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy", but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. The excerpt below, from post 68, briefly summarizes how I viewed those "stages" at the time (2019). Each of the stages is a particular form of Causation (dynamics) with specific applications to Evolution. Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions.
For example, Thermodynamics is what we typically call Energy, which usually flows downhill, from Hot to Cold, and from Potential to Entropy. Morphodynamics focuses on the physical form (superficial shape or topology) of things that have been transformed from one configuration to another, or one species to another. The process of metamorphosis is guided by the constraints of natural Laws. On top of those low-level physical procedures, Teleodynamics focuses on the general & universal changes wrought by the advancement of Causation in the world --- including the Purposes of late-blooming humans.
The "teleo" prefix implies that an apparently purposeful process is aimed at some future state, as-if it is a computer program seeking an answer to Douglas Adam's computer-stumping riddle : "what is God, the Universe, and Everything?" That's a philosophical question, not suitable for digital computers, or even AI-chatbots.
The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind.
Regarding the long-delayed evolution of Self-Conscious beings, an associate of Deacon's, Jeremy Sherman wrote Neither Ghost Nor Machine : The emergence and nature of Selves. He expands on Deacon's hypothetical "AutoGens", as the missing link between physical and biological evolution. "Deacon suggests the autogen as a minimal Kantian Whole where the parts exist for and by means of the whole". So, you might add Holism (metaphysical system-building) to the list of dynamic powers of a maturing universe.
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Life adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. The Life force is not a physical substance though ─ as some envision Spirit, Soul, Chi, Prana, or elan vital, but merely the process of recycling successful patterns of organization. So, what is the ultimate attractor4 toward which all change is directed?
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests