TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness

[Gnomon]

Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"?
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind. — Alkis Piskas

"Conscious Experience" is a form of repetition of a concept in different words, for emphasis.

I'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories.The material world is still built upon an immaterial foundation of novelty-creating (surprise) power-to-enform, which is no more Spiritual than Mathematics ; except that some kind of Great Mathematician may be implicit in Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture*2.


*1. Both are "functions" of material organisms, but functions themselves are mental/mathematical.

*2. It from Bit :
Wheeler categorised his long and productive life in physics into three periods: "Everything is Particles", "Everything is Fields", and "Everything is Information".
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit


Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". If you want a bare bones summary of the Enformationism, look at Wheeler's scientific thesis*3.

But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis, which is intended to broaden the application of Wheeler's quantum physics inference to a more general approach toward understanding "God, the Universe, and Everything", have a go at my own plodding exploration of the topic*4. It has lots of footnotes & references, but only for those who are genuinely interested in the immaterial subject matter.


*3. John Archibald Wheeler :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*4. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be an update to the 17th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient ideologies of Spiritualism. It's a "substance" in the sense of Aristotle's definition as Essence.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

[Gnomon]

In the above quote do you express a binary view of physical/non-physical, which is to ask, do you see them as discrete polarities? — ucarr

Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance".

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. His argument for this monism is his first argument in Part I of the Ethics.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/


Above I asked about you possibly owning a binary physical/non-physical view because I suspect Deacon is propounding a view that might be characterized as absential-materialism, or absential-existentialism. As such, his theory is, in my understanding, non-binary materialism. — ucarr

I can't speak for Deacon, but I'd interpret his Mind/Matter ; Presence/Absence ; Potential/Actual ; Real/Ideal duality as merely the appearance to our physical senses and pondering minds. Yet philosophically, I suspect that he would accept a "non-binary" fundamentally Monistic view, but I can't see it as a form of Materialism in any sense.

Incomplete Nature :
Starting with substance monism, we see that as a result of the three levels of dynamics, namely thermodynamics, morphodynamics, and teleodynamics that ...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24761945

Your overview of Incomplete Nature is instructive and useful. Can you contrast Incomplete Nature and Enformationism? — ucarr

I have already compared & contrasted bits & pieces of his Incompleteness theorem in my blog, as noted in posts above. But, while similar, they are not really parallel concepts. His is professional & scientific and mine is amateur & philosophical. I have merely adopted some of his evocative terminology --- Absence & Aboutness --- for my own purposes.

Deacon outlines an ambitious goal: understanding the emergence of consciousness from insensate matter https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/0 ... processes/

[Gnomon]

Have you ever considered that your subconscious mind has solved the problem of consciousness better than what you do in attempting to define it formally? Maybe your neural network is better at solving this problem through trial and error over time than you are at attempting a formal definition.

I think that's the case. And the natural solution is better than the contrived solution of a formal definition. — Mark Nyquist

Do you consider Philosophy --- "contrived solutions" --- a waste of time? Should we all just accept our personal intuition, without making any attempt to resolve differences of opinion on such questions? Should we all just play video games instead of posting on opinion-swapping forums?

How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
― E.M. Forster

[Gnomon]

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time. — Alkis Piskas

Have you noticed that my posts usually have two or more parts? The first part is my abbreviated "personal view", and the second part is other people's views (often experts & professionals). If you're not interested in the views of those who are more qualified than yours truly, no one forces you to click on the links. The third part is to provide a path to deeper discussions and technical data. If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking.

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. Yet, they have no qualms about "spending valuable time" playing adolescent-fantasy video games. Others collect stamps or cabbage-patch dolls in their quest to "waste time" with little or no remuneration. To each his own.

Personally, the Enformationism thesis is not a save-the-world mission, or a save-my-soul religion ; It's more like a hobby that exercises my aging brain, and "wastes time" with ideas that pique my curiosity. The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain. If you are content with superficially sampling philosophical gossip, perhaps Twitter (X) is more your style.

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon

Of course I like to know what you say. I keep coming back. Things turn up here that I wouldn't think up on my own. — Mark Nyquist

I'm glad that my posts challenge you to consider ideas that may not have occurred to you independently. That's the basic purpose of this forum.


↪Wayfarer
Your brain is projecting "information" on DNA.
It's not real. — Mark Nyquist

Speaking of challenges : You would be smart to consider what ↪Wayfarer says about Information & Consciousness. He's one of the wisest & best-informed posters on this forum. Since his background in Philosophy is different from mine, I am often challenged to see the world from a different perspective.

PS___ The genetic information in DNA chemistry is not real & physical, it's ideal & metaphysical. But its processing has real physical consequences, such as little hybrid clones of oneself and one's partner, with a life & mind of its own.

[Gnomon]

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. — Alkis Piskas

Shortly after our dialog in this thread, on the distinction between "Perception" & "Conception", I came across the Quora article linked below*1. The author takes an "enactivist approach" to such contentious questions. I was not previously aware of that particular philosophy of Consciousness, but it may agree with my thesis in principle, if not in detail. Enactivism seems to be an attempt to bypass the implicit Dualism of the notion that they are two incompatible entities, as in Brain/Mind and Body/Soul or Oil & Water doctrines, while avoiding the implication problems of Panpsychism.

Enformationism is monistic, but in a different sense. It says that physical Perception and mental (metaphysical) Conception are merely different forms of the same universal substance/essence : Generic Information (power to enform ; programmed causation/energy). The Quora article doesn't mention Holism specifically, but that is how I unify two apparently isolated things, that are integral parts of the same system.

If you are not inclined to click on an external reference, stay tuned. As I become more familiar with Enactivism*2, I may eventually offer my personal opinion on the notion that Perception and Conception are merely two phases of the same thing, that we know via different channels : a> neural senses or b> sixth sense of Reason/Inference. For now, all I can say is that I agree with the monistic conclusion.



*1. What is the difference between conception & perception? :
The question is essentially dualistic, that is, it implies the two are implicitly divided, are different; a case of body and mind dualistic reductionism.
www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-be ... f-Lawson-4
Note --- The author seems to dismiss the traditional dualism as a linguistic quirk. But I think our common languages may reflect important philosophical discriminations made over the years by important thinkers.

*2. Enactivism rejects mainstream conceptions of mind that strongly demarcate minds from bodies and environments. It holds that such conceptions are not justified and should be rethought. Enactivism aims to eradicate misleading dualisms that continue to dominate analytic philosophy of mind and much cognitive science. It aims to dissolve the mind-body problem by asking us to abandon our attachment to traditional dichotomies and to come to see that minds are not ultimately separate from bodies, environments, or others.
https://iep.utm.edu/enactivism/

[Gnomon]

The idea is that the proto-consciousness of all the particles of an entity in which enough different things are happening, particularly (according to my hypothesis) processes involving information, actual consciousness comes about. The potential of what I might call the "raw material" is realized. — Patterner

Sorry to butt-in here. But, the term "proto-consciousness" caught my eye. I assume you are defending Panpsychism from a Materialistic challenge. And I happen to agree with the general trend of what you're saying. Except that I express the concept of "proto-consciousness" in terms of Information theory, which I trace back to Plato's Theory of Forms*1. And I update the ancient notion of Panpsychism in terms of modern Quantum & Information theories. Both of which have added new terminology into the old controversies about the nature of Consciousness.

I can't encapsulate the complexities of my thesis in a single post. But I find a lot of parallels with your parry & thrust in my own defense of Enformationism. For example, I make a philosophical distinction between Real & Ideal ; Potential & Actual ; Mind & Matter ; and Perception & Conception in which all are aspects of our common world, but viewed from different perspectives : the physical eye, and the eye of the mind. For example, we can see Actual things with our perceptual (neural) systems, but we only imagine Potential possibilities with our conceptual (rational) systems. Causal & structural EnFormAction*2 (power to enform & power to know) underlies all of those aspects, including material and metaphysical.


*1. Protoconsciousness is a theory suggested by quantum physicist J.A. Wheeler, whose "it from bit" postulation inspired my own Enformationism thesis. However, I typically substitute the more general & abstract term "Information" in order to indicate that I'm talking about the essence of everything, not just human sentience. Panpsychism is most often criticized for implying that rocks are conscious. But Protoconsciousness could be used in an evolutionary sense to mean "not yet conscious".

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Energy or Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter, this causal principle equates Energy with Mind, by analogy with the Energy, Matter, Information Equivalence Principle.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy


DON'T STEP ON THAT SENTIENT STONE!
send-a-rock.png?format=2500w

↪Alkis Piskas

[Gnomon]

I only need to hear and discuss about another member's own opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. — Alkis Piskas

Of course. This is basically an opinion-sharing forum. But it's different from a gossip forum like Twitter (X) in that opinionated people are expected to support their personal beliefs with public facts or plausible reasons. So, I provide both : a> my own ideas on a topic ; plus b> supporting information that you can read at your leisure. I typically provide a brief excerpt so you can decide if you want to waste time on that particular link.

I know. But if you want to build a comprehensive worldview, don't you think it's a good idea to leave for a while the "West" space within which your philosophical quest is usually confined, as large as that space may be, and look also to the "East"? — Alkis Piskas

If you had looked at my thesis, you would know that it is intended to be "comprehensive", and inclusive of a variety of philosophical views. For example, Holism is an essential element of my worldview, and Taoism is very similar to my own Weltanschauung. But those non-reductive notions are often dismissed on this forum as New Age nonsense, or Eastern mysticism. I'm not a hippie or a mystic, but I give props to the ancient philosophies of the East, and non-Western societies.

[Gnomon]

Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr

Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". However, I think Deacon has already done a better job --- than I could ever do --- of modeling the something-nothing tapestry, in his Incomplete Nature book.

INTENTIONAL ACTION TRANSFORMS NOTHING INTO SOMETHING
27829380-do-something-or-do-nothing-a-man-weighs-up-the-two-alternatives-by-drawing-a-seesaw-on-a-virtual.jpg

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's simply a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and b) no direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious. — ssu

Yes. Since the universe itself is still evolving, it and everything-in-it is an open-ended continuum. So, I doubt that Consciousness has reached its final form. The early stages of universal evolution were full of Potential, but little Actual. Protoconsciousness is simply another name for the Potential to evolve future states of Information Computation with enhanced Awareness. Besides, Consciousness is a process, not a thing ; emergent, not static.