The Hard problem and E=mc2
This is a continuation from a previous thread titled the "hard problem of matter" by Metaphysician uncover.
If conciousness is fundamental/primordial, then logically it's distinction from physicalism would derive directly from the 4 elementary components of existence: namely Energy, Matter, Space, Time and their interdependent dynamic/behaviours.
What springs to mind then is Einstein equation E=MC^2.
Where Energy is equivalent to mass by a factor of C^2.
C^2 being the "speed of light" squared.
If we assume consciousness is the interaction between thought and memory, then the stand-ins I would select for a fundamental/primordial consciousness would be Energy (thought) and Matter (Memory).
Because memory is thought encoded in a stable format just as matter is energy pent up in a stable or crystalline form. Bonded to itself.
The hard problem of consciousness deals with the gap between thought and memory. Or between experience/sensation and the anatomical structure of the brain (the connectivity and pattern of neuronal arrangement that encodes previous or stored thoughts).
In this case the hard problem is narrowed to the relationship between Energy and Matter. Or how they are equivalent (unified, or "not a hard problem" ).
Thus, taking the equation E=MC^2 the hard problem is the C^2 component.
Let's break it down.
Speed is a relationship between Distance and Time. Which is good because it means these 2 remaining core elements of existence are factors of the equation between energy and matter - in the "speed of light".
Light is energy. So energy features in both sides of the equation: Energy = mass x (distance/time) of energy (light) (squared).
Therefore the equation is "self-referential". A promising facet if we are considering the concept of "self" or consciousness as a primordial.
That would suggest that it only requires energy to satisfy the equation or in other words, energy has the capability to manifest both itself (action) and what it acts on (matter). And it uses time and distance dynamics to do so (speed).
Or rather that time and distance (space) are a byproduct of the conversion between the two.
So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. This means distance must be able to expand/contract and time must be able to dilate/contract from net zero (0)when energy is just energy, to some positive integers when energy converts to mass (ie the emergence of the space-time dimension).
Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity.
Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen.
Is this explanation scientific? Certainly not. Scientific objectivity being based on physicalism not subjectivity/theory of mind. But is it a reasonable or rational union? Perhaps.
This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones. Something that both describes the content or workings of conscious awareness and the physical observable world - the fundamental interactions of the physical world paralleled with a theory of mind explanation, and where the dichotomy between them arises naturally from the same unifying dynamic.
But, that's for you to decide/critique. Have at it.
If conciousness is fundamental/primordial, then logically it's distinction from physicalism would derive directly from the 4 elementary components of existence: namely Energy, Matter, Space, Time and their interdependent dynamic/behaviours.
What springs to mind then is Einstein equation E=MC^2.
Where Energy is equivalent to mass by a factor of C^2.
C^2 being the "speed of light" squared.
If we assume consciousness is the interaction between thought and memory, then the stand-ins I would select for a fundamental/primordial consciousness would be Energy (thought) and Matter (Memory).
Because memory is thought encoded in a stable format just as matter is energy pent up in a stable or crystalline form. Bonded to itself.
The hard problem of consciousness deals with the gap between thought and memory. Or between experience/sensation and the anatomical structure of the brain (the connectivity and pattern of neuronal arrangement that encodes previous or stored thoughts).
In this case the hard problem is narrowed to the relationship between Energy and Matter. Or how they are equivalent (unified, or "not a hard problem" ).
Thus, taking the equation E=MC^2 the hard problem is the C^2 component.
Let's break it down.
Speed is a relationship between Distance and Time. Which is good because it means these 2 remaining core elements of existence are factors of the equation between energy and matter - in the "speed of light".
Light is energy. So energy features in both sides of the equation: Energy = mass x (distance/time) of energy (light) (squared).
Therefore the equation is "self-referential". A promising facet if we are considering the concept of "self" or consciousness as a primordial.
That would suggest that it only requires energy to satisfy the equation or in other words, energy has the capability to manifest both itself (action) and what it acts on (matter). And it uses time and distance dynamics to do so (speed).
Or rather that time and distance (space) are a byproduct of the conversion between the two.
So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. This means distance must be able to expand/contract and time must be able to dilate/contract from net zero (0)when energy is just energy, to some positive integers when energy converts to mass (ie the emergence of the space-time dimension).
Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity.
Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen.
Is this explanation scientific? Certainly not. Scientific objectivity being based on physicalism not subjectivity/theory of mind. But is it a reasonable or rational union? Perhaps.
This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones. Something that both describes the content or workings of conscious awareness and the physical observable world - the fundamental interactions of the physical world paralleled with a theory of mind explanation, and where the dichotomy between them arises naturally from the same unifying dynamic.
But, that's for you to decide/critique. Have at it.
Comments (53)
A prescient thought! About 15 years ago, I had a similar idea --- based, not on philosophical or religious treatises, but on Quantum & Information theories --- and eventually wrote a non-academic thesis to expand on the basic premise : that "mind stuff" is the essence of reality. In the late 20th century, quantum scientists began to equate Energy with Information*1. That is the reverse of Shannon's equation of meaningful Information with the dissipation of energy (Entropy). Just as the invisible intangible power behind all change (Energy) was equated by Einstein with tangible Matter (E=MC^2), I proposed to equate Energy with Information*2, and hence with Mind (the knower of information)*3.
That was the beginning of my attempt to solve the "Hard Problem" of how actively-seeking Sentient Minds could emerge from an insentient world of passive Matter pummeled by formless energy. Thesis postulate : the big C is merely a highly evolved form of Energy. In essence, the Big Bang Singularity (the Acorn) functioned like a computer. It processed pre-existing Causal Power into the creative & destructive activity we now call Energy & Entropy. And from that ongoing information-processing, great oaks and great minds would grow. Thenceforth, the program of Evolution was a "unifying dynamic", integrating raw data (bits of information) into complex assemblies with novel properties beyond those of the subordinate parts of whole systems.
The "dichotomy" between parts & wholes is bridged by the "unifying dynamic" of EnFormAction*4 : the act of creating novel forms of fundamental Information/Energy. The Form of a thing is its logical structure, that rational minds recognize as unique entities (things). So, that's my "theory of explanation" for how Minds emerged from Matter. I won't go further in this post, but the online thesis and blog expand on this foundation to explain other related scientific & philosophical mysteries. However, since you asked, I will mention that this thesis implies the pre-Big Bang existence of an Energy/Information Source, similar to what Plato called "Logos" and Aristotle called "First Cause" or "Prime Mover"*5.
Since the fundamental element of this theory is Information, I call my Programmer, the Enformer. The notion that mental information is the universal Cause is similar to Panpsychism. But, to avoid confusion with ancient "spiritual" notions of a Tyrant in heaven, I coined a variety of alternative labels for the axiomatic creator of our gradually maturing world. And to avoid implications with the ancient belief system of Atomism/Materialism, I gave the thesis a signifying name*6. :smile:
*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
*2. Information is mental :
the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Note -- Knowledge & intelligence would be useless & meaningless without consciousness.
*3. Knower :
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguists, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. ___Wikipedia
*4. EnFormAction :
[i]*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
*** The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*5. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*6. Enformationism :
[i]*** As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
*** As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Benj96
Could you elaborate on that?
The proof is in the numbers, so explain how that comes about.
Quoting Daniel
Okay so I'll try to approach this with another analogy: imagine the mind or conscious awareness as some sort of "non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase (structured form) as well as a liquid/fluid one.
It's a singular "substance" that has the capacity to phase transition between stability (memory) and instability (active thought, imagination, creativity).
The threshold between phases is determined by the energy or activity introduced to that area of the mind/brain - probably reflected by blood flow in an fMRI series/study.
And this change in the location of activations could be referred to as "focus of attention" or "concentration".
Essentially when one revisits stored concepts, beliefs and thoughts encoded in bonded or crystalline memories - you would be overcoming the threshold of those bonds stability with one another (in other words shifting synapses) or "melting" and rearranging those structures by the mere fact that you're focusing on them. They become more "plastic".
So the parts of the mind at the slowest rate of change (with the least energy) confer memory or passive awareness (everything you "know" and have recorded from experience) and those parts that are at the opposite end confer attention or active awareness - what you are in this moment thinking about.
This model or theory of mind could perhaps parallel the axis between energy and matter and the temporosoatial dimension at a grander scale as I discussed in the OP. Where energy (change) or fluid intelligence is tied to/interdependent or works through matter (memory) or crystalline intelligence. As matter is pent up or stored energy.
Time and space are in this case "perceptions" of consciousness that emerge from the laws imbedded within E=mc2 - the axis between energy and matter as a singular substance with phase transition.
Thus time and space would not actually be physically "real", as 1). the sensation of time passing requires memories of the past (matter) as a reference point for establishing the present moment by comparison (what's changed) as well as the future (anticipation of further change)
2). And space is only perceivable as something "real" with reference to objects (matter - that by its nature is an occupant, matter occupies the dimension of space) and thus sets up "distances" between objects.
You can't make a measurement of space without objects. From where to where would you make your measurement in "pure emptiness"?
I'm not a mathematician. Haha. Numbers are not my strong suit.
We can crunch the numbers on intelligence for sure. How or to what degree something has the ability to predict, direct and influence it's environment. In essence to be aware of its environnement and how it functions.
We have been crunching these numbers for our entire evolution either directly (survival) or indirectly (who failed/died). We have also been crunching these numbers through science, mathematics, geometry, engineering to explain and predict everything from orbits to economic turmoil etc.
However, we can't crunch the numbers on being a subject. Because to do so, we must de-personalise them, dehumanise them, invade their personal privacy, make their entire subjective experience from birth to death public knowledge. And that is impossible for now.
We also can't crunch the numbers on subjective consciousness because one does it's own weightings and values of the information it receives and stores. Often irrationally. Based on bias that both the cause of personality and the product of personality.
What are all the weightings and values of your experiences, thoughts, beliefs and memories since birth, how did each moments "self evaluation/weighting" - your mood or self esteem at the time determine your behaviour and actions in the next moment?
So there is some distinction to be made between "intelligence/awareness" and "self consciousness/subjectivity" when it comes to calculatability. And that's temporality. It would take 26 years of calculations to derive my subjectivity from a basic starting point of raw, sponging, absorbing language acquiring intelligence. All variables factored in.
All conscious beings (those with an individual identity) are intelligent/aware. The difference is intelligence can be calculated in general. Objectively. Subjectivity can only be calculated by the subject or the subjects experience is the product of the calculation and that is unique to them.
So yes the proof is in the numbers. But the act of proving is problematic logistically.
I never thought of my EnFormAction principle as a "non-Newtonian fluid" (like Oobleck or Flubber), but it is defined as the ability to transform from one "phase" to another. Here's a glimpse of that information-based concept, which is one step toward understanding the Hard Problem. :smile:
Phase Transformation :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Of course it sounds like relativity. Your premise is an equation derived from relativity, so your conclusion will be relativistic as well. To get a different conclusion you'd need to start with a different premise concerning the relationship of matter to energy. The problem is that "energy" is a concept which is manipulated to conform to how we understand the movement of mass. So you'd have to relate matter to something other than energy, like relate matter directly to time and space. But that would leave something out, "substance". So it's like attempting to take the substance out of matter, which is the essential aspect of matter anyway. Therefore it's a misguided attempt in the first place.
Quoting Benj96
Actually, the fact that the relationships must be altered indicates that these cannot be related relativistically.
Quoting Benj96
This exemplifies the problem. "Substance" is itself stability. So treating substance as if it could loose it's stability is to take the substance out of substance. So if way say that there is something else, which transitions from stability (substantial) to instability (non-substantial), then we have to account for the occurrence of stability. We would need to analyze what "stability" implies, and determine what type of thing could pass from being stable to being unstable, and see if this is even a coherent concept.
In line with the title of the thread, we could call this the hard problem of mass.
There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". That is to say it consistently, or constantly transforms.
Perhaps instead of substance a better word would be phemenona or something but honestly that whatever word we use to refer to it I mean an "existant" - whether it's a field, or a thing, or a stuff or a substance. It's property is that it "always" changes.
The substance fitting that definition is Information.
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode. Causal Information is the fundamental substance, constantly transforming into various modes. :smile:
What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
It's a little hazardous to form an analogy outside physics with a concept or result in physics that one does not fully understand. Especially when numbers are involved. But bully for you to give it a try. No cigar, however. :roll:
Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis?
may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. The article below*1 is way over my head, but it seems to connect abstract "Quantum Mechanics" with organic "Metabolism", and with "crystalline solids" ("non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase" ). I don't follow everything in his proposal, but the notion that "Phase Transitions" (such as Energy into Matter) are essential to other transformations --- such as Matter to Chemistry, Chemistry to Biology, and Biology to Mind --- makes sense to me. I'll have to leave it to the experts in each field to provide the numbers ("mathematical formalism") that add-up from quantum abstractions (e.g. virtual particles ; wavicles) to concrete Matter, to functional Biology, to imaginary Mind. :smile:
*1. Implications of quantum metabolism :
Quantum Metabolism rests on the notion that the enzymatic oscillations in cellular organelles and the material oscillators in crystalline solids can be analyzed in terms of the same mathematical formalism used by Einstein and Debye in the quantum theory of solids.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321517/
Einstein's framework describes a relation in a way smaller scale.......
You can say that metabolic molecules produce energy by which brain systems are able to produce mental states...and this is where we need to stop.
Why stop at a transition? Energy is the universal Cause of change. Why not see where it goes after brain states are energized? What "breathes fire" into the brain? :smile:
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Scientific frameworks describe specific phenomena. We stop because claims about "energy" make no sense.
Energy is NOT an agent. Your understanding of what energy is..is very weird. Energy is nothing more than an abstract concept describing the capacity to do work.
It doesn't go anywhere "after brain states are energized". Metabolic molecules provide the energy to our brain to function.
Quoting Gnomon
Nothing breathes fire, your brain "burns" those molecules allowing all its mechanisms to produce our mental states.
Hypoglycemia (fuel deprivation of the brain) can produce permanent brain damage, even death.
Yes. but my comment was not a "scientific framework"; just a comment on a philosophy forum, about one of the long-running mysteries of the world. I'm aware that for scientists Energy is just a number to plug into their calculations. But for philosophers, Energy is the causal force of all change*1.
Whatever it is, Energy is both a Qualitative (power, capacity, ability) and Quantitative (rate of change) abstraction of the cause of transformation*2. Metaphorically, Energy is described as "flowing" like a liquid. It "flows" from Hot to Cold (both are quantitative states, not objects or places)*3. But the metaphors are necessary only because Energy is invisible & intangible & sneaky. Like a distant wind in the night, we only know it exists by observing its after-effects : change. As a Causal Agent, Energy is spooky.
My Enformationism thesis is based on the conclusion by quantum physicists that Energy is a form of Generic Information*4. Information, for physicists, is the universal power to enform, to transform. As a statistical state of being, it's not a physical thing, of course. But it's often treated as-if it's an agency (action, influence, power). It may be a medium of agency, but that leaves the original causal Agent to the imagination. So yes, like quantum physics, my concept of Energy (Causation) is "weird". :smile:
*1. Causation and the Flow of Energy :
Secondly, 'power', 'force', and 'energy', have senses in which they are not synonymous with the other terms in Hume's causation circle . . . .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20010665
*2. Energy transformation,also known as energy conversion, is the process of changing energy from one form to another. In physics, energy is a quantity that provides the capacity to perform work or moving, or provides heat. ___Wikipedia
*3. Into the Cool :
Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3533936.html
*4. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
"Change" is incompatible with "stable property"
Actually, there is one substance in the world with the consistent property of causing change. That universal Substance (Aristotle's essence)*1 functions like an enzyme in the world : it causes Change, but does not itself change. That substance is what we call "Energy". It is invisible & intangible & immaterial, but it's what makes the world go 'round.
With regard to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, one form of Energy may be essential to understanding how Awareness emerged from dumb Matter. Modern physicists have equated Energy with Information*2 : the invisible, intangible, immaterial contents of Minds. Claude Shannon discovered that problems with communication of Information -- from one mind to another -- were due to Entropy. And Entropy is the inverse of Energy. Which is why physicists refer to the opposite of negative Entropy as positive Negentropy. In math, the negative of a negative is positive. The general role of Energy is to cause change; and the role of Entropy is to destruct what was constructed by positive Energy. Ironically, we don't have a proper name for that constructive causation. Until now.
Negentropy is an efficacious form of Energy, but the label doesn't sound positive. That's why I like to call it -- in this context -- Enformy*3. So, the role of Enformy in the world is to produce constructive change : to Enform ; to give form to the formless. It's the creative force in the world that counteracts destructive Entropy. And, since the original (pre-Shannon) meaning of "information" referred to mind-stuff, it may also be the positive constructive causal force behind Consciousness, which creates ideal mental models of the real world. So, if you can accept that shape-shifting Information is also the essence of Consciousness, then the so-called "Hard Problem" becomes simpler. You do the math. :smile:
*1. Substance and Essence in Aristotle :
focusing on Aristotle's account of form or essence.
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801421266/substance-and-essence-in-aristotle/#bookTabs=1
*2. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" hypothesis "anticipated ongoing speculation that consciousness is fundamental to reality".
*3. Enformy :
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).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
If change was not a stable or constant property then change would stop.
Change changes everything else but it's own ability/property to cause change. The quality is preserved, the subject upon which the quality is exerted, is not.
According to what? It's an assumption. And yet we have a hard problem of consciousness that we haven't yet reconciled using biology alone.
So, I understand that conscious states "might" be a biological phenomenon. But I'm inclined to believe consciousness is not restricted only to biological things.
Yes. But it would likely be taken as an analogy by most people rather than something literal.
Quantum biology is an emerging field of study if you care to Google.
It's a little hazardous to assume that an interdisciplinary approach is not one that often leads to novel insights. If we had a world where every discipline was strictly confined and not permitted to borrow from others, we would still be in the dark ages.
If I use a physics analogy outside of physics it may describe another phenomenon/ have explanatory power despite substituting of the individual physical elements with ones outside of physics.
Can we not use natural selection for example (from biology) in sociology, neuroscience, AI language models, social media algorithms etc and still get the same effects of "fitness" and "spread" that we see in biological evolution.
I think the single most useless thing one can do is to convince themselves they're not allowed to reformulate or change how they use concepts from "other disciplines" which refer to the "same subject of study" - reality jist for the sake of someone saying "but thats physics you can't do that!".
I really do not think that change can be said to be a property, because change is the process whereby something loses or gains a property. So, you must have a different idea of "change" than I.
But for the sake of argument, suppose "change" is a property which is stable and constant, then we would have to say that the changing thing is unchanging. That's directly contradictory, the same thing has the property of changing, and unchanging at the same time. Your way of speaking Benj96, is incoherent and unintelligible.
Btw, I think Nicko got banned.
Yes, he did. And that is too bad. You get a scientist on the forum who "have at it" an argument using science in panpsychic realms and he's banned.
I understand your annoyance. But jgill's objection makes sense. Without some numbers behind your hypothesis, it remains a metaphorical device. And Physics is useless as a metaphor. Really we shouldn't even reduce consciousness to a metaphor -- as contentious as it is already.
For example, this:
Quoting Benj96
Why aren't we talking about the behavior of neurotransmitters and dopamine? Why is hippocampus not mentioned here? I'm at a loss for how to argue about this because we have gone so far away from the true source. We criticize and shun neuroscience, yet we're willing to turn to physics to make our point. Did we sign an exclusive contract with physics? Or do we think that we're taken more seriously if we use physics instead of neuroscience?
Good point. :up:
BTW, "interdisciplinarity" gets ~6.5 million results in Google. And "interdisciplinary" ... ~405 million!
I do. For me change is a property of potential. Potential wouldn't be potential without a capacity to change into lesser potent products following the gradient if entropy.
Haha! I would expect as much :)
Not true from my personal perspective/rationalisation. The changing thing is changing. The constant it abides by in doing so - change - is permanent in its phenomenonology.
In this case your statement would be a conflation of the actor (change) with the acted upon (the changed) - they are a dichotomy. "Everything" material/physical - ie that with matter and mass is not as potent/doesn't carry the same potential as pure potential (energy travelling at the speed of light).
The changer (energy) can convert into the changed (matter), yes, I agree, but in doing so it loses "potential" (capacity to exert change, by forming byproducts in the process - space and time - this being entropy - the deceleration or loss of power/potency that comes with energy becoming matter) according to E=mc2.
This is where the confusion lies. Potential is the sum of all things. But not all things have ultimate potential (as products/the subset of it).
In other words, the substrate is a product of a previous substrate, the product is a substrate for ongoing products.
The whole process is change - the law that governs transformation.
Imagine "change" as a central constant point/axis around which all things are changed by it/respective to it. Like how the circumference of a circle is "constantly changing" velocity/direction whilst the center of the circle is static (unchanging) - the constant being the relationship - Pi between something unchanging (the center) and something ever-changing (the circumferences velocity).
Pi is defined (numerically) and undefined (irrational and infinite) simultaneously. Like the energy (change) - mass (changed) -spacetime (relationship) dynamic.
I hope i am articulating the concept well. Forgive me if it isn't unclear I'm happy to further elaborate if need be. It's a tricky subject one I've been thinking about for years now
The true source being the human brain according to you? A rather large assumption to make I believe.
There is a lot at play here. Physics, chemistry, biochemistry, neurochemistry, the human brain. The system is built from the ground up.
Consciousness deriving from physics does not preclude or deny the applicability of neuroscience as being built upon it.
What I was saying is that consciousness may not be human centric. Ie that the human brain is very good at exemplifying and refining consciousness through evolution, but that consciousness itself derives from fundamental principle's that go further back than the human brain and is more inclusive of other lifeforms that also exhibit aspects of consciousness on varying levels.
Taking abiogenesis as an example, who's to say consciousness is not operating on all levels of self organisation (negentropy)?
The transition from non living chemical cycles and systems to "living ones" is likely a steady, graduating, linear progressive development and nothing sudden/abrupt.
Which propones that agency, self, and consciousness is more like a wave than something discrete and particular. That sentience is something that slowly emerges and advances than something that "suddenly switches on" and even less likely something that only human brains do. Primates are very similar to us (99%). To say that consciousness is conferred by that 1% difference doesn't seem cohesive.
I believe apes have emotion and experience like fear, anger, joy, sadness, curiosity and playfulness etc. Like many other animals. Plants are probably conscious in their own way, communicating with one another, experiencing acute stress, sending warning signals to other plants. Just because we don't understand it well doesn't mean it's an impossibility.
My suggestion (trying not to sound condescending or. dismissive here) is to really open your mind up to at least contemplating (for funzies) how consciousness could be more basic (time and space perception from matter experiencing energetic impulses/catalytic processes).
Agreed.
Quoting Gnomon
Bit confused here. Negative entropy is what life does. From What I understand Positive negentropy is "moreness" of negentropy. Negative negentropy (double negative) is entropy (disorder).
So for me your "what physicists refer to the opposite of negative entropy as positive negentropy" are one and the same.
Quoting Gnomon
Information shape shifts in the general universe. Energy transforms from one form to another at a very basic level. So if this is consciousness it is at its lowest state of awareness in the general universe. I believe complexity leads to greater awareness. As complexity is an acknowledgement of more control, and control requires awareness/imbedded knowledge.
All in all I like your "enformy" description. I actually think we are singing from similar hymn books. We are merely describing the same thing from different backgrounds/povs.
But bravo. I like your consolidation of information, entropy and energy.
However I'm inclined to believe that space and time are perceptions of the matter-energy dynamic. Perceptions meaning that the conversion of energy to matter (e=mc2) is consciousness. That consciousness is born from relativity.
As two objects cannot be relative to one another without an observer. Space and time is a product of physical memory.
Yes. both physical Negentropy and philosophical Enformy are characteristic of living organisms. And Entropy is characteristic of dying systems. But when Shannon adopted the physics term into his Information (communication of meaning) theory, it had a different context and meaning from Thermodynamic Entropy*1. Likewise, "Negentropy"*2, although superficially similar, applies to a different context. Ironically, the negation of a negative concept may sound like a non-positive concept.
So, no. Negentropy is not "one and the same" as Enformy*3*4, but the confusion is understandable. Which was the point I was trying to make in a short post. I go into much more detail in the thesis and blog. Thermodynamic Negentropy is not the negation of a negation in a mathematical sense. :smile:
*1. Entropy :
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy fundamentally damages isolated systems, so it is possible to distinguish between open organizations and closed organizations (isolated system). Isolated systems tend toward disorder, that is, things tend toward chaos over time.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8625646/
*2. Negentropy :
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. The concept and phrase "negative entropy" was introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book What is Life? Later, Léon Brillouin shortened the phrase to negentropy. ___Wikipedia
Thus Schrödinger arrived at his famous remark, What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help produce while alive.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005272899000651
Note -- Entropy is a tendency toward dis-organization. The 'negative" is superfluous. Enformy is a trend toward organization. Not a physical thing or object, but an evolutionary direction. A trend is knowable information. The positive or negative connotation is in the mind of the observer.
*3. Entropy and Information :
Several posts and my classes in thermodynamics equate increase in entropy with loss of information. Shannon clearly showed that the information content of a message is zero when its entropy is zero and that its information content increases with increasing entropy. So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order. Why does physics continue to get the relationship between entropy and information backwards?[
"So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order". No, information is conserved, and so does not increase. Entropy is increasing and this means that the evolution goes from ordered universe towards disordered universe, so exactly the contrary of what you are saying. Entropy is equivalent to disorder, or uniform information. The total information is conserved, but the uniform information is increasing.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75146/entropy-and-information
Note -- In the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information (EnFormAction) is similar to Energy, in that it can be both constructive (organization) and destructive (disorganization). So total Information is conserved, while order increased and decreases. Likewise Enformy, not Energy per se, is merely am overall positive trend toward order in the universe. That the same thing can be both positive and negative can be confusing, when used in the wrong context.
*4. Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or 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.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Benj96
You are making a category mistake. You state that change is a property. but then you make change the thing, the actor. At one point change is the predicate (property), and at another time it is the subject (actor). That's equivocation. Then what you say afterward is incoherent to me because of this equivocation.
Quoting Benj96
You'll have to clear up that issue, stated above, before we can proceed any further toward a mutual understanding.
Yes. Because energy is (actor) and does (property). The two are united as a singular entity. It "is doing-ness".
So it is the actor and the acted upon. What else can energy act on other than itself? Could you give an example?
Matter is also energy. It is energy that has been acted upon (converted into the material) by energy (itself). It's just more stable, existing at a slower rate, bonded, pent up - ie changing at a slower pace (object permanence) relative to the fastest pace (speed of light) E=mc^2.
And this matter can be converted back to its non pent up energy form again (nuclear physics).
There is no categorical mistake. The 2 categories are synonymous with one another. We split them apart for convenience, to isolate /investigate specificities and individual characteristics unique to every form energy can take/ every state it can occupy. In other words, we define.
I hope the above clarified it better.
Just like a coin has 2 faces, is one face any more "coin" than the other? Is matter (acted upon) any more or less the same substance than the actor (speed of light energy). The only thing that separates them is spacetime (their relationship to one another, just as a coin has a relationship between the two faces).
As I said, this is incoherent to me as a category error which result in equivocation. The subject (actor in your terms), and the predicate (what the actor "does"), refer to two distinct things. We can assign the same name to these two distinct things "energy", and this is very common in cases where a word has meaning as a noun, and meaning as a verb, but we must maintain this separation of meaning, to avoid ambiguity. And if that ambiguity is actually utilized within a logical demonstration this is the fallacy of equivocation. And that is what you are doing. Therefore you argue by equivocation and this renders your argument as incoherent to me.
Quoting Benj96
The coin is the subject and it has two stated properties. face one, and face two. The coin itself is not face one, nor is it face two, or even a composition of face one and face two. It is not a composition of the two because there is an endless number of properties which can be named, the edge, the printed figures, the weight, the shape, etc., and we could never name all of them required to produce "the coin" as a whole. So if "energy" is your subject, as "coin" is, whatever properties you name, which energy is supposed to have, they are not the same as energy.
So it is correct to say, as you propose, that one face is not any more the coin than the other, but no matter how many properties you name, you do not get "the coin". Your category mistake with "energy" is that you assume "energy" as subject, and its properties, as predicates, are the same.
When we make them distinct. Sure. The universe as a whole is a single thing. One category. It can be itemised/fragmented into as many categories as you see fit by establishing boundaries, sets, delineations. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a single thing.
The whole thing is connected and in a state of flux. How microscopic, segmented and specialised you want to get or how macroscopic, fluid and spectral you want to get is entirely up to you.
I speak in terms of unifying closely related relationships. You speak in terms of separating them apart into distinctions. Both have their pros and cons and reveal different aspects of information and knowledge. The premise one has for arguments sake dictates which direction one goes.
Even making this statement is an act of demonstrating the separation. You have the thing you are talking about, the subject, named as "the universe", and you have what you are saying about it, the predicate, "is a single thing". Therefore your statement implies necessarily, a specific type of separation within the universe which you exist. Despite your claim that we can start with the assumption of "a single thing", you have already demonstrated that you assume two things, the thing itself (named the universe), and what you have said about it (a single thing). These two do not have the same meaning therefore they necessarily refer to distinct things. Your claim therefore is self-refuting, it demonstrates itself to be false.
You cannot avoid the separation by denying it.
Quoting Benj96
The problem obviously is that the act of "unifying" requires a prior separation. You want to start with the premise of "a single thing", thereby denying this prior separation which is logically necessary for your claimed act of "unifying". In on other words you deny the reality of what is logically required for the act which you make.
Yes. Thats how language works. I could just say "the universe is the universe" or even more extreme a case just keep chanting "oneness" repeatedly in response to everything you say. But that wouldn't be informative would it - information of course being what i use the distinctions imbedded in language to get across.
"Language" is not "concept/idea" is not "reality." None of those three things are equal to one another. And they cannot be. That fundamental trinity is the triad of miscommunication and individalism.
If we never made common sense assumptions about what the other means by a phrase and instead requested infinite regress qualification of every single individual word we would be here until eternity. Thats based on how specific you want to get. But there is also brilliance/value in the fluidity of not being highly specific to convey general meanings which is what i was trying to do. Thats the "fluency" of language.
You pointing out that my language breaks down into little itty bitty pieces that are all separate doesnt detract from the notion - my perspective that the universe is the "whole cake" and everything distinguishable within it is a fraction of that cake.
Theres a reason why the outer box on a venn diagram depicting sets is called "U".
So again, i reiterate, we can go splitting things apart and examining them in isolation like energy and matter as completely seoarate things. Or we can unify them (as einsteins equation does) and approach a singular fundamental, discussing how they are two faces of the same proverbial coin. But it depends on whether you want to accord or discord with me, that will dictate whether the conversation moves forward fluidly or remains static and fixated on particulars. (the dynamic triad i mentioned early).
There will always be uncertainty somewhere - either in our language, or in our concepts we try to articulate or in the subject on which our concepts are based (reality). Heisenberg knew that. Assumptions must be made somehwere.
So, Metaphysician Undercover, are you arguing "against" me, or discussing "with" me?
But this is not the same as the other. To say "the universe is the universe" is to repeat the same thing, as a statement of idenity, and this says nothing about the universe.. To say as you did, "The universe as a whole is a single thing", is to say something about the universe. But then what is said about the universe is necessarily something other than the universe itself.
Quoting Benj96
The point is, that when you propose that the subject (energy), and the predicate (what energy does), are one and the same thing within the category called "the universe", you leave the thing that you are talking about, the universe as unintelligible due to the incoherency which you create with this proposition.
Quoting Benj96
As I explained, the things are already split apart, naturally. Your attempt to describe them as unified is unsupported by any real principles, so your proposition is in discordance with reality, therefore false.
Something said about another may be correct (ie opinion in alignment with what is) or it may be incorrect (opinion not reflecting what actually is). And what of it? What's your point.
I dont see incoherence in energy being a thing and that thing being what it does. I have no issue with action being a thing. Or "doing" being an existant phenomenon (a thing that is).
Is "discordance" not a phenomenon that exists in reality? If so, then discordance is one aspect of that which is true/exists - part of reality. I dont believe my views were discordant in the first place, but even if they are, they are not false in that they still exist.
The point is that the thing, and what is said about the thing, or, what the thing is said to do, cannot be the same. this is evident in your example. "The universe", and "is a single thing", each mean something different.
Quoting Benj96
If you still don't understand the difference, then so be it. I don't see how I can explain any further. The incoherency is due to the fallacy of equivocation which I explained to you earlier. If the word "energy" refers to a thing, and it also refers to what a thing is doing, then these are two distinct meanings of the word, as it is used as a noun in the one case, and as a verb in the other. To use the word as if the two meanings are interchangeable, or the same, as you propose, is the fallacy of equivocation. It is this fallacy which renders your perspective as incoherent.
I find this comment puzzling. The true source being the neuroscience. Let's not re-invent the wheel. We have at our disposal a discipline that devoted countless hours to study and explain... the brain.
Quoting Benj96
I don't have a problem contemplating the basics. What I'm saying is, there's our source already. Trying to be creative is another thing -- which I think what you've been trying to do.
First of all neuroscience isn't the source of consciousness. It's a discipline. The brain may be the organiser of conscious awareness in humans. Sure. I'm not reinventing the wheel here at all.
What im saying is not all life forms have human like brains, or any "brains" for that matter and yet are organised and complex enough to demonstrate awareness of their environment, behaviours and agency. And are likely conscious in their own unique experience, different to humans.
To make an assumption that the human brain is the only source of awareness in that case is a massive assumption. I believe it's likely that AI has the potential to also become agent/independent and have sense of self and personal autonomy in the near future, if it is not already underway.
Let us not be so closed off and egocentric to place humans in the center of the sphere of all that is conscious. We are one of many.
I hope you find this comment less puzzling than the previous.
All new ideas, innovations, inventions, concepts, theories and hypotheses are creative (alternative) when compared to previous pre-established understandings. That doesn't mean they're wrong or not useful. And it certainly doesn't mean they don't often replace the previous paradigm.
So maybe im being creative. What of it? That is the boundary between synthesis of new information and known information. In any case what I'm saying turns out not to actually be something new. Others share this opinion. You may not be aware of other understandings or propositions about the nature of consciousness but it doesn't mean they don't exist now does it? Haha
For me the brain is how consciousness complexifies. But that doesn't mean the brain is the source of it. It's the product of it. A reflection of its evolution and refinement.
All you are saying is the language about something, and the actual thing, are not the same. Obviously. That's basic. What of it? It's not like I can demonstrate anything without communicating it (communication not equalling/being the subject of communication).
I actually already acknowledged that with the triad I highlighted previously. Perhaps re-read it again.
"If you still don't understand the difference, so be it."
You keep insisting that the thing and what is said about the thing, are the same. Here:
Quoting Benj96
What something does, is always what we say of the thing. It's how we interpret its relations to other things. The principle of relativity makes use of this fact, allowing that we can describe a thing's relations to others in multiple ways, none of which could be said to be the true way.
Since the thing is one, and what is said about the thing (what it does) is a multitude, they cannot be the same.
This is absurdity from where I'm coming from. We can speak of definitions (nouns) and actions (verbs) both. By the logic of what something does always being what we say of it, then if we say cats teleport then suddenly they do. Except of course what we say about something (either what it does or is) is independent of what that existant actually does or is.
Language Does. Not. Equal. Reality. It can only point at it and describe partial aspects of it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Except one needs to outline that energy is fundamentally all things and their relationships. So when speaking of one substance "in relationship" to itself - it's various potential forms/permutations, it is (all these things) and does (all the relationships between them).
My whole argument is while every material thing is A (is a thing) and does B (an action/behaviour or action), Potential Energy is "unique", an exception to other existants, in that it's very definition as an "is", an existant phenomenon or substance, is that it "does". It's action is it's definition. A basketballs action is not it's entire definition. A bar of chocolates action is not it's definition. But "action" itself (energy) "is" it's definition.
If this isn't coherent/making sense for you at this stage I think we can just agree to disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily but I think we are simply coming at the topic from completely opposite angles.
Like we are both looking at a 6 and a 9 on the floor and you're saying its 69 and I'm saying its 96.
Right, you are just demonstrating the difference I am talking about. Even the name of the thing is distinct from the thing itself. And that's why we cannot reduce all to one, as you propose. Even if we make the name a thing itself, and say something about it, what we say about it is not the same as the thing, and this would just lead to an infinite regress. So your proposal for unification would just produce an infinite regress which would render all of reality as unintelligible.
Quoting Benj96
This is an incorrect representation of "energy", which actually only refers to the relationships between things. Things themselves are said to have mass, which is not the same as energy, but is in some way equivalent by the formula expressed in the op, "E=mc2". Do you recognize the difference between "the same", as indicating the very same, or one and the same thing, and "equivalent", as indicating two distinct things which are equal according to some principle or principles?
Quoting Benj96
I've known since the beginning of this discussion that we could never agree, because you very quickly demonstrated that you are not averse to believing something which is incoherent. You seem to believe on principle, or on faith, rather than through understanding. There is this incoherent idea you have, that a thing and what that thing does, could be one and the same, and instead of understanding what that means, and how it is incoherent, you simply keep insisting on it.
*Sigh*. Okay. I'm not interested in continuing. Thanks.