TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
This is more like it, in my opinion ( particularly the stuff highlighted in bold ).I am much more inclined to read something like this as you are unifying and integrating your knowledge and drawing some conclusion from it. — Pop
FWIW, I have added a pop-up on the last page of the Introduction to Enformationism blog post. It is a revised version of the Abstract post previously. It's more compact and less personal than this one. But it's not really an article. I may reserve the abstract for those who specifically request a brief summary, before they invest any time in some nobody's vanity blog.
Abstract pop-up : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
FWIW, I have added a pop-up on the last page of the Introduction to Enformationism blog post. It is a revised version of the Abstract post previously. It's more compact and less personal than this one. But it's not really an article. I may reserve the abstract for those who specifically request a brief summary, before they invest any time in some nobody's vanity blog.
Abstract pop-up : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
BTW your pop-up is not working for me - Chrome browser on windows. — Pop
It works in Firefox and Edge, so I don't know what the problem is. Unlike an internet link, this page link doesn't change the place marker to a finger pointer. You just have to put the place marker over the text and click. I might try a "rollover" popup instead of a "click" to see if that will work in other browsers. The problem with that solution is the popup box disappears if you move the mouse. Anyway, here's the content of the popup ---
Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
1. The Enformationism hypothesis aligns with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible physical energy or tangible matter, but the abstract meta-physical contents of a cosmic mind, or what we might now call : a universal “information processor”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality (bits & bytes) are no more mystical than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought (ideas) that we take for granted in our own personal neural information processor. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/. . . .xml
3. Axiom : Enformation (the power to enform) is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter, Energy & Mind are evolved forms of abstract, ethereal information encoded in the Primal Singularity.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, meta-physical Information Sciences.
It works in Firefox and Edge, so I don't know what the problem is. Unlike an internet link, this page link doesn't change the place marker to a finger pointer. You just have to put the place marker over the text and click. I might try a "rollover" popup instead of a "click" to see if that will work in other browsers. The problem with that solution is the popup box disappears if you move the mouse. Anyway, here's the content of the popup ---
Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
1. The Enformationism hypothesis aligns with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible physical energy or tangible matter, but the abstract meta-physical contents of a cosmic mind, or what we might now call : a universal “information processor”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality (bits & bytes) are no more mystical than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought (ideas) that we take for granted in our own personal neural information processor. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/. . . .xml
3. Axiom : Enformation (the power to enform) is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter, Energy & Mind are evolved forms of abstract, ethereal information encoded in the Primal Singularity.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, meta-physical Information Sciences.
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
If you google ungrounded variable mental construct you'll see what I mean. — Pop
Ooooh! That's quite a technical philosophical concept. But your summation is on target :
“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”
Yes. Art is a form of communication. And some older definitions of "art" emphasized how it conveys the feeling of beauty. Yet a lot of modern art is not intended to display beauty, but the ugliness of reality. So, I think you nailed-it, that what is communicated is how the artist views the world. This reminds me of the epigram -- attributed to Kant, The Talmud, among others -- "we see the world, not as it is, but as we are"
Ooooh! That's quite a technical philosophical concept. But your summation is on target :
“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”
Yes. Art is a form of communication. And some older definitions of "art" emphasized how it conveys the feeling of beauty. Yet a lot of modern art is not intended to display beauty, but the ugliness of reality. So, I think you nailed-it, that what is communicated is how the artist views the world. This reminds me of the epigram -- attributed to Kant, The Talmud, among others -- "we see the world, not as it is, but as we are"
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Yes thanks that worked. Still the text at the bottom of the pop up couldn't be read. The content seems spot on however. — Pop
Just for the record, I have revised the Thesis Abstract popup indicator so that it changes when you hover over it, to indicate that a click will cause an action. It doesn't turn blue, like a hyperlink, it merely fades, like a Cheshire Cat.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
PS___In the Information-Consciousness-Reality book, I just came across a line, in his abstract of all chapters, that is relevant to your thesis : "Self-organization appears like a fundamental force guiding cosmic evolution". That's essentially what I call EnFormAction in my own thesis. He also has a chapter entitled : A Universe Built of Information , which is what the Enformationism thesis is all about.
If you are interested, there is a free PDF download available, and the Kindle version is Free on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Information-Cons ... mozilla-20
Just for the record, I have revised the Thesis Abstract popup indicator so that it changes when you hover over it, to indicate that a click will cause an action. It doesn't turn blue, like a hyperlink, it merely fades, like a Cheshire Cat.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html
PS___In the Information-Consciousness-Reality book, I just came across a line, in his abstract of all chapters, that is relevant to your thesis : "Self-organization appears like a fundamental force guiding cosmic evolution". That's essentially what I call EnFormAction in my own thesis. He also has a chapter entitled : A Universe Built of Information , which is what the Enformationism thesis is all about.
If you are interested, there is a free PDF download available, and the Kindle version is Free on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Information-Cons ... mozilla-20
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth. — Pop
The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.
Also, he insists on making his Metaphysical speculations compatible with the available scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that "things are relational" is compatible with Einstein's Relativity, even though that perspective has some counter-intuitive implications. He also quotes Carl Sagan : "Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality". But each person's acceptance or rejection of that assertion will depend on their subjective definition of "spirituality". That's why we have philosophical forums, to hash-out those clashing definitions.
The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.
Also, he insists on making his Metaphysical speculations compatible with the available scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that "things are relational" is compatible with Einstein's Relativity, even though that perspective has some counter-intuitive implications. He also quotes Carl Sagan : "Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality". But each person's acceptance or rejection of that assertion will depend on their subjective definition of "spirituality". That's why we have philosophical forums, to hash-out those clashing definitions.
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself, — PoeticUniverse
Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.
Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly, — PoeticUniverse
Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.
Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He. — PoeticUniverse
Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be".
While consciousness exists just for itself, — PoeticUniverse
Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.
Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly, — PoeticUniverse
Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.
Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He. — PoeticUniverse
Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be".
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
I thought metaphysics was the science of the conditions of possibility of ‘what can be’. As such it includes within itself things and concepts. — Joshs
Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).
So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be". Plato is best known for his dialogues about the non-physical aspects of the world : most famously, the concept of such logically possible notions as "Ideal Forms", as contrasted with Real Objects. Those perfect patterns don't exist in a real sense, but we can recognize their incomplete logical structure in real things that fall short of seemingly impossible perfection. We never see Ideal things with our senses, but we know them with our reasoning ability, regarding what seems "possible" given what's "actual".
Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).
So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be". Plato is best known for his dialogues about the non-physical aspects of the world : most famously, the concept of such logically possible notions as "Ideal Forms", as contrasted with Real Objects. Those perfect patterns don't exist in a real sense, but we can recognize their incomplete logical structure in real things that fall short of seemingly impossible perfection. We never see Ideal things with our senses, but we know them with our reasoning ability, regarding what seems "possible" given what's "actual".
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
I am more familiar with Kant than with Plato. Would you agree that for Kant the the physical exists but is unknowable in itself , the mental exists in itself but is empty without sensations from the world ('concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind‘). So Kant’s metaphysics shows us that the physical is an ideal , not an actuality. It is an ideal in a different sense than the mathematical concept of zero, yet still an ideal. Therefore his metaphysics is showing us that ‘what is’ ( both as fantasized concept and as physical ) is the product of an indissociable interaction between external reality in itself and subjective mental process. — Joshs
I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.
As you noted, our mental Concepts are mostly based on our physical Percepts. Our mental worldview is constructed from basic elements of perception and sensation. But we also create abstractions that bear little resemblance to concrete Reality. Yet, I can't imagine a mind that is completely disconnected from the physical world. And yet, it's true that our self-created conceptual worldview (e.g. Surreal Art) can mix & match the elements of mundane Reality into bizarre unreal forms. For example, Psychonauts, who experiment with drugs (opening the Doors of Perception), claim to experience a "higher" mental or spiritual realm divorced from reality, where the body & ego don't exist. Personally, I have had no such subjective experience. So, I have to take their word for it . Such noumenal "sensations" are completely foreign to my own drug-free mundane reality.
That said though, as a way to scientifically conceptualize the distinction between our Percepts and Concepts, I like the metaphor of an "Interface Reality" used by Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny that there is something "out there" for our senses to perceive. But like Kant, he concludes that our personal conception of that underlying Reality is a simplified symbolic abstraction of "what-is".
Interface : Window to Reality :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.
As you noted, our mental Concepts are mostly based on our physical Percepts. Our mental worldview is constructed from basic elements of perception and sensation. But we also create abstractions that bear little resemblance to concrete Reality. Yet, I can't imagine a mind that is completely disconnected from the physical world. And yet, it's true that our self-created conceptual worldview (e.g. Surreal Art) can mix & match the elements of mundane Reality into bizarre unreal forms. For example, Psychonauts, who experiment with drugs (opening the Doors of Perception), claim to experience a "higher" mental or spiritual realm divorced from reality, where the body & ego don't exist. Personally, I have had no such subjective experience. So, I have to take their word for it . Such noumenal "sensations" are completely foreign to my own drug-free mundane reality.
That said though, as a way to scientifically conceptualize the distinction between our Percepts and Concepts, I like the metaphor of an "Interface Reality" used by Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny that there is something "out there" for our senses to perceive. But like Kant, he concludes that our personal conception of that underlying Reality is a simplified symbolic abstraction of "what-is".
Interface : Window to Reality :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests