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. . . . — Gnomon
I'm highly dubious about this. You can't make up definitions of fundamental words, like 'information'. — Wayfarer
You are probably most familiar with Claude Shannon's definition of Information. But, my general definition of Information above is a distillation of many technical definitions. For example, Shannon defined Information in absolute digital terms suitable for computers : either 1 or 0; either True or False. Hence, no uncertainty. But humans are analog computers, and parse information in terms of relative certainty : a ratio between 1 or 0; a probability range from True to False. Shannon's Entropy is defined in terms of a degree of order relative to disorder. The complete concept of Information is so broad that you will find almost diametrically opposite definitions depending on the application. For example, Shannon equated computer Information with physical Entropy, expressed as a Ratio between Randomness and Order : "Information entropy is the average rate at which information is produced by a stochastic source of data." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_( ... on_theory)
My thesis goes step-by-step through the evolution of the modern meaning of Information, and has several pages of references. But in the final analysis, it's all mathematical and metaphysical : a Rate or Ratio is not a specific thing, but a general range of probabilities from certain information (100%) to uncertain Information (0%). The human analog brain uses fuzzy logic (intuition) to extract meaning from incoming information. That may be why precise mathematics does not come easy for most of us; it requires hard conscious thinking.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Not only then is the ratio a : b the fundamental notion for all activities of perception, but it signals one of the most basic processes of intelligence in that it symbolizes a comparison between two things, and is thus the elementary basis for conceptual judgement . . . A proportion, however, is more complex, for it is a relationship of equivalency between two ratios . . . An analogy.
—-Robert Lawler, Geometry
Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
Knowledge is not information, knowledge is 'understood information'. Ability to know is not information, ability to know is ability to understand information. — Zelebg
Knowledge is just one form of Generic Information. In my thesis, Consciousness is a highly evolved form of Generic Information. Generic Information is essentially abstract mathematics, and is physically manifested as Energy. Mathematically, Energy is a proportion --- a ratio between Cold & Hot, for example. And metaphysical mathematical Energy, according to Einstein, is equivalent to Mass (ratio of inertia to acceleration) , which is the measurable property of physical Matter. But, Meaningful Information is in the relationship, not the things.
So, Information (knowledge) in it's traditional sense is a property of Mind, of Consciousness. In my view, it's both the ability to know (verb; action; to enform), and the thing known (noun; object; a physical form). The multiple functions of Information can get confusing when you switch from Physics to Metaphysics, but it's both Quanta and Qualia. That's why my thesis proposes Enformationism as a modern update of ancient Materialism. The thesis goes into much more detail to explain that apparent paradox, and the underlying unity of Mind & Matter, Brain & Consciousness. Enformationism seems to be related to Mathematical Platonism, but I'm not very familiar with that contentious concept .
Mathematical Platonism : Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Knowledge is just one form of Generic Information. In my thesis, Consciousness is a highly evolved form of Generic Information. Generic Information is essentially abstract mathematics, and is physically manifested as Energy. Mathematically, Energy is a proportion --- a ratio between Cold & Hot, for example. And metaphysical mathematical Energy, according to Einstein, is equivalent to Mass (ratio of inertia to acceleration) , which is the measurable property of physical Matter. But, Meaningful Information is in the relationship, not the things.
So, Information (knowledge) in it's traditional sense is a property of Mind, of Consciousness. In my view, it's both the ability to know (verb; action; to enform), and the thing known (noun; object; a physical form). The multiple functions of Information can get confusing when you switch from Physics to Metaphysics, but it's both Quanta and Qualia. That's why my thesis proposes Enformationism as a modern update of ancient Materialism. The thesis goes into much more detail to explain that apparent paradox, and the underlying unity of Mind & Matter, Brain & Consciousness. Enformationism seems to be related to Mathematical Platonism, but I'm not very familiar with that contentious concept .
Mathematical Platonism : Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
But I'm sorry to say that I think the extraction of a 'metaphysics' from information theory is pure science fiction, I don't think that definition of 'information' would pass muster in any serious journal or department. (Sorry to be so blunt.) — Wayfarer
That's OK. My thesis is also quite esoteric, and is not amenable to mainstream reductionist materialist Physics. But there are plenty of Physicists and Mathematicians out there on the fringes, that hold a more holistic worldview. Some of them (e.g. physicists Paul Davies and Max Tegmark) are published in serious journals, and hold their own in both scientific and philosophical debates. Unfortunately, for me, such holistic ideas are readily accepted by those of the New Age persuasion (e.g Deepak Chopra), but they tend to lean a bit too much toward Spiritualism for my comfort.
That's OK. My thesis is also quite esoteric, and is not amenable to mainstream reductionist materialist Physics. But there are plenty of Physicists and Mathematicians out there on the fringes, that hold a more holistic worldview. Some of them (e.g. physicists Paul Davies and Max Tegmark) are published in serious journals, and hold their own in both scientific and philosophical debates. Unfortunately, for me, such holistic ideas are readily accepted by those of the New Age persuasion (e.g Deepak Chopra), but they tend to lean a bit too much toward Spiritualism for my comfort.
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
↪Gnomon
How could there be 'generic information'? — Wayfarer
That's another of my coinages to encapsulate the idea of multiform, multi-function Information as both Cause (to Enform) and Effect (matter & mind are products of creative energy). "Generic" is intended to imply "general" as in applying to all members of a class, and also "generative" (creative) like a seed that puts out many shoots. In philosophical and religious terminology, "Generic Information" is equivalent to the creative Logos or Word of God. The Enformationism Thesis, Glossary, and Blog go into much more detail to support this notion, with scientific and philosophical reasons, but no reliance on scripture. However, if you are not aware of the ubiquity and versatility of Information in the real world, none of this will make sense to you.
Generic EnFormAction :
In the Enformationism theory, Mind & Brain grow from a single root. Both are forms of a primal generic causal force : EnFormAction (energy/enformy). So matter can be viewed as energy stabilized & localized in space, while Mind is dynamic & non-local, and exists only in the forth dimension of time. In other words, Life & Mind are emergent functions of matter in action.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
Logos/Word : in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
How could there be 'generic information'? — Wayfarer
That's another of my coinages to encapsulate the idea of multiform, multi-function Information as both Cause (to Enform) and Effect (matter & mind are products of creative energy). "Generic" is intended to imply "general" as in applying to all members of a class, and also "generative" (creative) like a seed that puts out many shoots. In philosophical and religious terminology, "Generic Information" is equivalent to the creative Logos or Word of God. The Enformationism Thesis, Glossary, and Blog go into much more detail to support this notion, with scientific and philosophical reasons, but no reliance on scripture. However, if you are not aware of the ubiquity and versatility of Information in the real world, none of this will make sense to you.
Generic EnFormAction :
In the Enformationism theory, Mind & Brain grow from a single root. Both are forms of a primal generic causal force : EnFormAction (energy/enformy). So matter can be viewed as energy stabilized & localized in space, while Mind is dynamic & non-local, and exists only in the forth dimension of time. In other words, Life & Mind are emergent functions of matter in action.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
Logos/Word : in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/356570
To LearN the MeaninG of the WordS look into DictionarY. YoU may use yoUr own PersonaL LanguaE to talk with yoUr ImaginarY FriendS, but in the ReaL WorlD it only makes you InsanE and IncompetenT to have ConversatioN. — Zelebg
I'm sorry you feel that way. Since I'm breaking new ground in the Enformationism Thesis, rather than just recycling old ideas, I am forced, like many philosophers and scientists, to coin new words to express novel ideas. Have you ever heard of a "wavicle"?
With "imaginary friends" like you in mind, I have provided an extensive Glossary of Terminology, and a Blog to expand on difficult concepts. In order to learn the meaning of my words, you'll have to look into my dictionary.
Neologisms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
Lexicon of Neologisms : http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/lex_philosophy.html
Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
To LearN the MeaninG of the WordS look into DictionarY. YoU may use yoUr own PersonaL LanguaE to talk with yoUr ImaginarY FriendS, but in the ReaL WorlD it only makes you InsanE and IncompetenT to have ConversatioN. — Zelebg
I'm sorry you feel that way. Since I'm breaking new ground in the Enformationism Thesis, rather than just recycling old ideas, I am forced, like many philosophers and scientists, to coin new words to express novel ideas. Have you ever heard of a "wavicle"?
With "imaginary friends" like you in mind, I have provided an extensive Glossary of Terminology, and a Blog to expand on difficult concepts. In order to learn the meaning of my words, you'll have to look into my dictionary.
Neologisms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism
Lexicon of Neologisms : http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/lex_philosophy.html
Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/356575
That's not the reason it doesn't make sense to me. — Wayfarer
Other than my arcane vocabulary, is the "reason" you're dubious because Enformationism combines Physics and Metaphysics? Most scientists are careful to not cross that line. But I'm not a scientist, nor a professional philosopher. So I don't have to worry about being ridiculed by my peers. Or, is there another reason? I'd like to address it if possible.
PS__Christof Koch, in his recent book, Consciousness, subtitled it : Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. His basic question is one that crosses those same taboo lines : "What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? Christof Koch has devoted much of his career to bridging the seemingly unbridgeable gap between the physics of the brain and phenomenal experience." [my emphasis]
In The Feeling of Life Itself, Koch admits that, "Speculations about ultimate "why" questions are enjoyable at the intellectual level. But they also contain more than a whiff of the absurd, trying to peek behind the curtains that hide the origin of creation only to find an endless set of further curtains." [my emphasis]
Note : Koch's theory of Consciousness is based on Integrated Information Theory, which is compatible with my own thesis.
That's not the reason it doesn't make sense to me. — Wayfarer
Other than my arcane vocabulary, is the "reason" you're dubious because Enformationism combines Physics and Metaphysics? Most scientists are careful to not cross that line. But I'm not a scientist, nor a professional philosopher. So I don't have to worry about being ridiculed by my peers. Or, is there another reason? I'd like to address it if possible.
PS__Christof Koch, in his recent book, Consciousness, subtitled it : Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. His basic question is one that crosses those same taboo lines : "What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? Christof Koch has devoted much of his career to bridging the seemingly unbridgeable gap between the physics of the brain and phenomenal experience." [my emphasis]
In The Feeling of Life Itself, Koch admits that, "Speculations about ultimate "why" questions are enjoyable at the intellectual level. But they also contain more than a whiff of the absurd, trying to peek behind the curtains that hide the origin of creation only to find an endless set of further curtains." [my emphasis]
Note : Koch's theory of Consciousness is based on Integrated Information Theory, which is compatible with my own thesis.
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/356623
You're trying to come up with an explanation of foundational principles. I don't think you realise quite how big an undertaking that is. The 'first principle' or 'ground of being' or 'source of what is' can't be so easily depicted in a new catch-phrase like 'enformationism'. — Wayfarer
Ha! I am acutely aware of how big an undertaking it is to flip my own understanding of reality upside down. Enformationism began as a flash of insight --- that immaterial Information is the foundation of reality --- and I have been trying to test that hypothesis, skeptically, for the last ten years. I have almost convinced myself, but I find it's difficult to convince others, if they don't have the same intuition that "reality is not what it seems".
I have mentioned the recent book by quantum scientist Carlo Rovelli, primarily because of its title : Reality Is Not What It Seems. But his explanation is mostly about the paradox of Quantum Gravity. I'm currently reading a book by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality, which is closer to the concerns of this thread : Consciousness and Perception. His explanation argues that our perception evolved to be Pragmatic (what works) instead of Veridical (truth).
All mammals, including humans, are Pragmatic Materialists by nature, because it is adaptive to assume that what you see is what's really out there. But humans are also capable of looking beneath the superfical surfaces to the underlying "foundational principles". Yet, what we have found there is the weird world of Quantum Physics, where the foundation of reality can be described, not in terms of macro-level space-time properties, but only in terms of arcane quantum mathematics, and of Unicorn metaphors for individual Particles that behave like holistic Waves. Counter-intuitively, "Wavicles" seem to be both particles and waves. Hence, Reality has been de-materialized by our extended technological senses. But most of us still act as-if what we perceive via unaided sense is what's really out there, despite the current consensus of Science that it ain't so.
Although Quantum theory has turned Classical Materialistic Physics inside-out, it is now grudgingly accepted by most scientists. So, I have tried to develop a worldview that can reconcile the reports of our Physical senses with the revelations of our technology, and our logical/mathematical inferences about the Quantum Metaphysical foundations of Reality. I call that compromise conciliation the BothAnd Principle.
BothAnd Principle : "Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose."
You're trying to come up with an explanation of foundational principles. I don't think you realise quite how big an undertaking that is. The 'first principle' or 'ground of being' or 'source of what is' can't be so easily depicted in a new catch-phrase like 'enformationism'. — Wayfarer
Ha! I am acutely aware of how big an undertaking it is to flip my own understanding of reality upside down. Enformationism began as a flash of insight --- that immaterial Information is the foundation of reality --- and I have been trying to test that hypothesis, skeptically, for the last ten years. I have almost convinced myself, but I find it's difficult to convince others, if they don't have the same intuition that "reality is not what it seems".
I have mentioned the recent book by quantum scientist Carlo Rovelli, primarily because of its title : Reality Is Not What It Seems. But his explanation is mostly about the paradox of Quantum Gravity. I'm currently reading a book by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality, which is closer to the concerns of this thread : Consciousness and Perception. His explanation argues that our perception evolved to be Pragmatic (what works) instead of Veridical (truth).
All mammals, including humans, are Pragmatic Materialists by nature, because it is adaptive to assume that what you see is what's really out there. But humans are also capable of looking beneath the superfical surfaces to the underlying "foundational principles". Yet, what we have found there is the weird world of Quantum Physics, where the foundation of reality can be described, not in terms of macro-level space-time properties, but only in terms of arcane quantum mathematics, and of Unicorn metaphors for individual Particles that behave like holistic Waves. Counter-intuitively, "Wavicles" seem to be both particles and waves. Hence, Reality has been de-materialized by our extended technological senses. But most of us still act as-if what we perceive via unaided sense is what's really out there, despite the current consensus of Science that it ain't so.
Although Quantum theory has turned Classical Materialistic Physics inside-out, it is now grudgingly accepted by most scientists. So, I have tried to develop a worldview that can reconcile the reports of our Physical senses with the revelations of our technology, and our logical/mathematical inferences about the Quantum Metaphysical foundations of Reality. I call that compromise conciliation the BothAnd Principle.
BothAnd Principle : "Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose."
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/357091
If discover how to decode all of the brain signals, so we can extract qualia from it to read thoughts and watch dreams, for example, then we would have solved all and every mystery there is about consciousness. No? Then what more could you possibly want? — Zelebg
Meaning.
It takes two informed parties to communicate in code. Both sender and receiver must understand the intended meaning of the symbols (signals) in order to encode and decode (interpret) them. Morse code is a conventional language of symbols that are meaningless in themselves. The audible or visual symbols (signals) are not the Information, but merely physical carriers of metaphysical Information in abstract bits and bytes. Meaning is in the Mind, not in the neurons (correlates of consciousness). Information causes meaning.
Neuroscientists have been able to decode brain signals (quanta) in a manner similar to the British breaking the Enigma code in WWII : by comparing overt behavior with meaningless symbols. Yet they are not tapping into subjective metaphysical consciousness, but only objective physical actions. The British were not reading the minds of the German high command; they were merely comparing code symbols with spying observations, in order to determine which symbols correspond with which ship maneuvers. That's a slow & crude method of communication compared to direct mind-reading. The use of a common language of conventional symbols is a much more effective way to "read" a mind. But it only reveals what the sender wants you to know, and your interpretation of the intent (qualia) could still be wrong.
"The process of encoding converts information from a source into symbols for communication or storage. Decoding is the reverse process, converting code symbols back into a form that the recipient understands,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code
Correlation does not imply Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation
If discover how to decode all of the brain signals, so we can extract qualia from it to read thoughts and watch dreams, for example, then we would have solved all and every mystery there is about consciousness. No? Then what more could you possibly want? — Zelebg
Meaning.
It takes two informed parties to communicate in code. Both sender and receiver must understand the intended meaning of the symbols (signals) in order to encode and decode (interpret) them. Morse code is a conventional language of symbols that are meaningless in themselves. The audible or visual symbols (signals) are not the Information, but merely physical carriers of metaphysical Information in abstract bits and bytes. Meaning is in the Mind, not in the neurons (correlates of consciousness). Information causes meaning.
Neuroscientists have been able to decode brain signals (quanta) in a manner similar to the British breaking the Enigma code in WWII : by comparing overt behavior with meaningless symbols. Yet they are not tapping into subjective metaphysical consciousness, but only objective physical actions. The British were not reading the minds of the German high command; they were merely comparing code symbols with spying observations, in order to determine which symbols correspond with which ship maneuvers. That's a slow & crude method of communication compared to direct mind-reading. The use of a common language of conventional symbols is a much more effective way to "read" a mind. But it only reveals what the sender wants you to know, and your interpretation of the intent (qualia) could still be wrong.
"The process of encoding converts information from a source into symbols for communication or storage. Decoding is the reverse process, converting code symbols back into a form that the recipient understands,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code
Correlation does not imply Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/357091
In degrees of uncertainty, how much information is in this program? — Zelebg
That depends on how many alternative interpretations are possible. As a computer algorithm, the Gaussian uncertainty is small. Which is appropriate for an artificial system with only two possible values : 1s and 0s. But for often ambiguous human language, the Bayesian uncertainty is moderate, depending on the prior knowledge of the person trying to interpret the code. For an Amazonian tribesman, the coded information may be completely meaningless : it could mean anything or nothing. Why do you ask?
In degrees of uncertainty, how much information is in this program? — Zelebg
That depends on how many alternative interpretations are possible. As a computer algorithm, the Gaussian uncertainty is small. Which is appropriate for an artificial system with only two possible values : 1s and 0s. But for often ambiguous human language, the Bayesian uncertainty is moderate, depending on the prior knowledge of the person trying to interpret the code. For an Amazonian tribesman, the coded information may be completely meaningless : it could mean anything or nothing. Why do you ask?
Re: Phil Forum : The Hard Problem
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/357340
The phrase "gaussian uncertainty" does not and can not exist in computer science. — Zelebg
I get the belated impression that your original post was talking about Computer Consciousness, while most of the discussion here has been about Human Consciousness. That may explain the failure to communicate.
"Gaussian Uncertainty" applies only to non-semantic numerical Information. "Bayesian Uncertainty" is necessary for analyzing semantic verbal Information. If you only communicate with computers in machine language (1s & 0s), uncertainty is at a minimum, but meaning is also minimal : syntax without semantics. But, if you want to communicate with humans in one of the thousands of historically-evolved culture-bound languages, uncertainty is high, yet the potential for transmitting meaning is also high.
Computers talk to other computers in binary (digital) language. And they can interface with programmers in one of the many artificial programming languages. But when they must communicate with ordinary humans, they have to translate from the sterile purity of syntax to the contaminated complexities of semantics. Apparently, you are trained to think in simplistic binary terms, so the ambiguities of confusing multi-value language makes human-speak sound like "greek" to you.
Human vs Digital Language : https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-lan ... 9410f13252
Semantics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
The phrase "gaussian uncertainty" does not and can not exist in computer science. — Zelebg
I get the belated impression that your original post was talking about Computer Consciousness, while most of the discussion here has been about Human Consciousness. That may explain the failure to communicate.
"Gaussian Uncertainty" applies only to non-semantic numerical Information. "Bayesian Uncertainty" is necessary for analyzing semantic verbal Information. If you only communicate with computers in machine language (1s & 0s), uncertainty is at a minimum, but meaning is also minimal : syntax without semantics. But, if you want to communicate with humans in one of the thousands of historically-evolved culture-bound languages, uncertainty is high, yet the potential for transmitting meaning is also high.
Computers talk to other computers in binary (digital) language. And they can interface with programmers in one of the many artificial programming languages. But when they must communicate with ordinary humans, they have to translate from the sterile purity of syntax to the contaminated complexities of semantics. Apparently, you are trained to think in simplistic binary terms, so the ambiguities of confusing multi-value language makes human-speak sound like "greek" to you.
Human vs Digital Language : https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-lan ... 9410f13252
Semantics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests