So-called mental functions are introduced on basis of feelings and thereof did not have any traces in objective reality.

Any one, believed in their existence as a real phenomena did not have any prove for that believes, except subjective feelings.

That could be funny illusion, actually is main obstacle on a way to understand life as it is.

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

Folks

Poznansky posits :

• "It is not a matter of being speculative because it is based on organicity. Speculative models are those that consider metaphors like the brain to be computer etc. In my approach, the brain is organic and material. There is no speculation."

"ORGANICITY" the state of being organic does not remove the speculative nature of his version of multiscalarity. I have illustrated how an organic system based upon understood connectivity in the living brain can produce memory from active mental contents, and can produce mental activation reflexively from mental contents.

Variation in the connectivity give predictable results that can be correlated by examining tissue.

Experiment Findings Perception Variance Analysis by increasing Associative Pyram...

Poznansky has been making many vague claims, and inventing new terms for aspects of mental life and transcendent values that send the curious on wild goose chases through the literature of the last 75 years, but honestly I fail to remember any of them, because they are not orthogonal ideas that can be meshed with any other widely accepted and testable notions.

Poznansky has been threatening to leave discussions that question his claims - but seldom carries through with his threats (to leave, to have others expelled, to enlist members to admonish other members); he's back, just as popular as before and here he is again pretending to be the peerless uber science professor publisher.

Please be more amazing this time, or I will have to buy some new shoes.

associative memory reflex causes thought and motion

biological intelligence is the juncture and familiarity and of many reflexes

we navigate our lives with this kind of intelligence as a continuum of physical and mental activity in the brain.

Larry Carlson

• "Terms such as information and consciousness, then, are conventionally used to assign value to some particularly impactful (and thus meaningful) turn of events. The emphasis is not so much on the concept of causality, as on the notions of a change of direction, the comparative extent of something's impact, the 'chance' to respond in more than one way, and/or, the progress that was made towards some perceived goal or set outcome."

seems to mean to want to support the idea of continuum of consciousness, wherein information may or may not be (contextually) relevant enough to influence the path being followed.

Poznansky:

• "As for the dynamic organicity theory of consciousness, there is nothing worse than removing dynamic and calling it organicity, as non-professionals post here."

what extra meaning do you obtain when you add dynamic to organicity.

It already is dynamic, unless it is in dreamless sleep or deceased?

Extra terms in mathematics don't make a simple equation better.

Anyway I hope what ever you finally decide to build works, it seems to be a sloppy idea so far.

You, dear professionals, are victims of the widespread mistake of substituting objective reality by subjective one.

The so-called mental functions are introduced based on subjective feelings without any information about the structure or functioning of the body as the bearer of the supposed properties.

There are no facts confirming the existence of mental functions.

Therefore, if there is a need to create artificial systems that behave the same way as living organisms, abandon erroneous views and admit the obvious.

Living organisms are automatic systems with feedback that function differently from those in artificial systems.

R. Poznansky

It does not matter how one names illusory entities.

So-called mental functions do not belong to objective reality (Is that term not outdated?) and, thereof, cannot be the subject of a scientific study.

Michael A. Zeldich, A short intervention about what you asked: Is 'objective reality' an outdated term?

Instead of attempting a one-line answer here, I suggest that you read the discussion on Phenomenal Ontological Commitment (POC) in this short discussion text ((https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution)), and perhaps you would have something to say further in the form of critiquing it. I have developed in detail the concept of objectuality and objectual reality in my book-length publications. (As of now, I do not publish articles -- whatever some auto-clever heads think of it.) Perhaps I can write a short version of it for ResearchGate.

Michael A. Zeldich

Active mental contents are both real (detectable in EEG etc.) and subjective; and the subjectivity as imagined is also real in terms of active mental contents (since they are also detectable in EEG etc.) - although this does not fully explain the minutae of each aspect of each active mental content arising and fading or being recycled (in short term memory).

Many things imagined have no reality outside of being a sequence of active mental contents, even though as active mental content they are real and dependently originated from other mental contents and memory in an ongoing stream that is known as consciousness.

One can declare that memory contains meaningful information, and that active mental contents are comprised of sensation and perceived information as relates to the context.

To the extent that dependently originated mental contents are informational, a dynamically changing stream of contextually relevant informational content represents an stream of consciousness within the brain of an individual.

Jerry Waese

Jerry, "EEG, etc.)" is not about mental contents. Instead, it is about the registration of the behavior of a brain initiated by stimuli.

Referring to a supposed mental content is based on the subjective opinions of researchers.

No, "One can declare that memory contains meaningful information, ...". Otherwise, one should show what entity in the body understands a meaning.

"To the extent that dependently originated mental contents are informational, a dynamically changing stream of contextually relevant informational content represents an stream of consciousness within the brain of an individual."

Understanding is not saved inside of a body. It is demonstrated through the behavior of an individual.

Raphael Neelamkavil

"A short intervention about what you asked: Is 'objective reality' an outdated term?"

You take it out of context.

My view on objective reality can be seen from the following. It is lethy, but shorter than many books with foggy content:

https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#:~:text=Many%20philosophers%20would%20use%20the,%2C%20thought%2C%20etc.).

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002) was founded in 1995 to provide open access to detailed, scholarly, peer-reviewed information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.

In the section “Objectivity,” we could find:

1. Terminology

Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.).

It is the right definition for me; no other could be better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. It is often related to discussions of consciousness, agency, personhood, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, reality, truth, and communication (for example in narrative communication and journalism).

· Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[3]

· Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being (how ?), then it is labelled objectively true. Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences. Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.[4] Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.

Both ideas have been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as the distinction is often a given but not the specific focal point of philosophical discourse.[5] The two words are usually regarded as opposites, though complications regarding the two have been explored in philosophy: for example, the view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, or that a spectrum joins subjectivity and objectivity with a gray area in-between, or that the problem of other minds is best viewed through the concept of intersubjectivity, developing since the 20th century. The root of the words subjectivity and objectivity are subject and object, philosophical terms that mean, respectively, an observer and a thing being observed.

The view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, mentioned in that exemption, is a result of misinterpretation of ancient Indian texts where one could find a phrase “all is illusory”.

That is true regarding imagination, which is not a complete representation of reality and, therefore, could be named an illusion but not related to the World itself.

Michael A. Zeldich

I think you have settled on a great definition:

• "Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)."

and it is fair to then add that subjective reality refers to anything that is dependent upon perception. (add whatever extra words you want but this is the essence of the difference)

where we differ is that I think that the fleeting energy patterns of perception in the brain are the objective underpinnings of the elusive perception, and that the tight definition above may in fact crumble as the reality of perception being the specific contextually influenced organic activation of neuronal memory patterns is both objective and not independent from the activity of conscious constructs.

Jerry Waese

Jerry, feelings of perception are the result of an organism's behavior. Perception formation is a dynamic process. Perception did not exist as something real and did not belong to objective reality.

Dear Raphael,

Is conscioiiusness exist? Tell me if you exist and I will know what is your answer. If you say, I don'nt exist then I will know you do not think consciousness exist and then I will proceed to examine why you think Raphael does not exist. But I would be surprise that you do not beleive in your own existence.

So lets assume you beleive that you exist. Lets now inquire why you beleive this. The answer is most likely not an theoretical one. You did not suddenly one day got an explanation that reveal to you, your own existence. NOW I KNOW I EXIST MOMENT. As long as you can remember, you remember experiencing something; The moments you did not experience, you cannot remember them obvioiusly; experiencing something is what we call consciousness. So you beleive to exist, but rather you experience and learn from other your name is Raphael and so you know that Raphael exist and you know this since you experience which is to say you are conscioius. Thus since you know Raphael exist then you know consciousness exist. This reasoning is base on the assumption you know you exist. I hope you agree on the premice that Raphael exists.

Regards.

- Louis

PS. Notice that you do not need to make a hole in your skull and test if you have a brain in order to be certain to exist or that your own consciousness exist.

R. Poznansky

It is sad that you choose to downplay my work without understanding it. You are unable to be critical without displaying animosity. It seems like you never have looked at yourself in the mirror. You sadden me as a person. Enough said.

R. Poznansky

As I said, It is sad that you choose to downplay my work without understanding it. You can choose to be enamored of your own work, but that does not prove you right. By the way, my theory does not rely on language.

R. Poznansky

As I said, you don’t understand my work, therefore you are in no position to comment on it.

R. Poznansky

Dear Larry,

''I would agree that "consciouness" exists, if by that one means that, for example, percepts (be they supra- or subliminal) or some general autocatalytic response processes exist.'

We do not need to enter into scientific explanations at all in order to be convinced that we experience life. It is irrelevant to the topic actually. It is pure self-evidence which needs no explanation. This is the most primary and most fundamental fact. No explanation needed. Any scientific theory cannot be certain. It is certainly approximative and certain to not be fundamental while consciousness is a word that designate the most fundamental of all facts. We are not here in the realm of explanation so there is not point entering the realm of explanation. If we missed this point, we miss everything.

''The problem is that people say that they are proving that consciousness exists by equating it with percepts (or with the existence of someones body and perceptions, beliefs, feelings, etc. (aka, mind).""

If someone say he is prooving the existence of consciousness then this person does not undertand the most basic fact which is that it is a fundamental fact. Not something one need to proof as if it is not a fact or as is it is a concept. It is not a concept. The word ''conscioiusness'' does not designate a concept, nor designate a particular type of experience. It designate the whole realm of experience. We can contextualise the word ''consciousness'' to designate the consciousness of a particular human or a particular animal, etc. Human experience comes in many categories: feeling, perception, effort , bodily control, emotion, and many type of activities , thought activities or language activities, and these as wth most activities are not individual experience but communal experiences where many persons interact and even dead persons throw their cultural legacies. We are fundamentally social and so most of our experience are communal and are not even possible in isolation. Like the conversation I have with you. It is a collaborative experience/activity. I just want to point out that experience is'nt always individual experience of a person but often two or more persons in interactions where each person appear in each other experience and the together generate this experience.

''That's all very well and good....But again, one cannot then equivocate by reframing ones definition of consciousness in terms of it being some creative process in the universe, or a synonym for god (with his own consciousness), or some ab initio, causa sui, force or entity with free will and ability to make moral choices, or some non-physical force that can move objects or affect the wave state of electrons, or some immaterial spirit, or some additional fundamental agent in the universe in addition to energy and gravity (as per Chalmers) etc. etc.''

Restricting ''consciousness'' to ''experience'' is not an exotic definition. But if one desire to move on the philosophical level of understanding what is consciousness then one enter a realm of debates with a huge number of positions. This is the nature of the philosophical beast to be controversial. It is not a domain where one can impose his idea to everybody. It is'nt going to happen. It is not possible to really even define consciousness into the scientific domain. I am not saying that there is no scientific psychology etc. There is but what is consciousness is'nt defined and what is studied are phenomena which can be measured and thus modelize. But all of what is done in psychology take these conscious phenomena as factuals and none of the theorizing is about why such conscious phenomena exist in the first place. I think that many philosophers did a good job at showing why this is'nt to happen in science. Among them, Chalmer deserve some credit for making the clear distinctions between the easy problems of consciouness and the hard problem of consciousness. He choose a bad name since the expression ''hard problem of consciousness''' wrongly sudgest it is a problem which it is precisely not. So he messed in his choice of name but at the same time coined this famous expression and the fundamental distinction that he pointed out STICKED in the collective consciousness.

Free Will is'nt as simple basic fact as ''experience'' is. The debate on free will is a philosophical debate and not a scientific one. Like consciousness its reality is'nt going to be one which we will even able to understand scientifically. There is two basic camps: one which accept the reality of free will as one of the most fundamental social concept which it is almost inimaginable to deny and the other camps: the free will deniers camp, those that say it does not exist but that we have the illusion of its existence.

The arguments of the free will denyer camp is that it is impossible since it would be a scientific nonsense. In many ways I agree that it cannot possibly be conceive scientifically. There are countless arguments that demonstrate this. But the absolute impossibility to conceive scientifically a reality is'nt an argument for the non existence of this reality. I agree with the free will denyer that no there is'nt going to any free will in science, not anything moral, etc. These realities cannot be conceived scientifically but I am on the Free Will Existence Side since like everybody I have been educated by parents holding me responsible up to my maturity level of my actions, my school educators also hold me responsible, praised me sometime, Shame me other time and so on. And the other kids did the same and I did the same for them. When a material object by accident fall on my foot, I do not hold this material object responsible, I am not angry at it and do not try to retaliate. I do not consider inanimate object as having agency and free will nor being conscious. But I hold my fellow humans responsable of their action thus holding they are not inanimate systems which could not have done otherwise. NO. I hold my kids responsible of their actions, I consider them as having a certain amount of free will , agency which varies among individual, age and character. The society at large since the earlier historical times is doing the same and created laws institutions and punishment for keeping people accountable of their action. None of this woud exist if we were intrinsically without free will. I do not even think it is possible for a philosopher which claim to be a free will denier to be consistent with this belief in his life: never holding anyone accountable since they could never have done otherwise in his conception. I consider some insanes as the exception of person who in a moment of insanity as truly acting without free will and it is why these are not punish for their actions but are put in spychiaytric yards. So it is impossible to truly deny free will and remain mentally sane; it is not a matter of a philosophical argument but the impossibility to deny it and remain sane.

''I suggest that the term not be used in scientific discussions... except in terms of its usual dictionary/medical definition of being in an active and/or normal state of cognitive perception.''

I agree. In science we can only use perfectly define words and use perfectly define concepts. This is not optional although in practice there is a lot of nonesense include in scientific papers unfortunatly.

''Of course, a scientific discussion, much like a discussion of electrons, can describe and explain much (but not everything) about activities related to perception, awareness, reporting of perceptions, memory, and other aspects of conscious activity (as opposed to being deeply asleep) at various scales (e.g., social interaction, genetics, anthropology, psychology). In this way, consciousness is a convenient umbrella term to refer to a wide range of functions, perceptions, sensations, feelings, memories, abilities, etc.""

Of course science always proceed by isolating a phenomena and then model it. It is always about very specific aspects of reality. We nowadays thinks there are particles called ''electrons'' and we knows how they interact with other particles, etc throw a number of probabilistic equations. We do engineering with this type of knowledge. But one day we may realise there is no electrons, nor particles and start to use other types of concepts. When this happen, our engineering systems conceived with the old electron concept will not stop working. The equations were true enough so if used in the context of their testing, these systems will work although we may not take the old electron concept as even relevant in some other contexts.

Conciousness is the umbrealla terms for any type of experiences but in science you will never encounter experience. No scientific concept can possibly correspond to consciousness or experience. Conscioiusness is impossible to deny but in science it cannot even be denied, it cannot possibly exist as a scientific concept.

''My scientific description of an airplane and how its parts interact is no substitute for the actual airplane which will get me off the ground.""

Take any model of airplane and the actual build airplane that take you off the ground is built exactly as the model specified. You can go back to the preliminaty design which will include all the reasons why this specific model has the specific performance as the plane you take has. There is no deep mystery in all of this. If there would be a mystery in the plane you took then bring a parachute with you. Mystery and Plane engineering do not mixed well. There are no mysteries in the engineering systems we built unless we make errors and then after the crash the inspector search for this mystery. But planes that fly normally have no mysteries.

''.but that does not mean that my conscious experience of seeing or describing the airplane will get me off the ground either.''

If you are a good plane engineer you will be confident a specific nmodel will get you off the ground. I am not certain I correctly interpret your argument here.

''The feeling of seeing a waterfall is one activity/event/occurrence amongst many related ones that might lead me to watch if for an hour; but the further gratuitous claim that the (or "my") consciousness or experience (in general) of feeling the waterfall caused, influenced, impelled, nudged, directed, forced, or guided me to watch it is a grammatical redundancy/tautology.""

I admit that it is hard to follow here. In general we cannot say '' My experience caused me to do that''. because there is an assumption that you are not your experience in this sentence. Our experience is not exterior to us, it is ''us''. If YOU and YOUR EXPERIENCE are exactly the same reality then your experience cannot do something to you since it is YOU. YOU or YOUR EXPERIENCE is'nt a force either. The concept of force in physics is entirely unrelated to experience. You cannot use scientific concept and appliy them to YOU. YOU do not exist in science. NO experience in science.

But you can say (not scientifically but using language in a normal way) that your experience of the waterfall was pleasing and fascinating and you would stay hours. Totally comprehensivle. Total nonsense scientifically.

''That an overall event (watching the waterfall) is the result of a plurality of events (seeing the waterfall, feeling an appreciation of its beauty, recalling ones trip to see it a year ago, the relaxing effects of serotonin, etc.).""

The effect of relaxing of Serotonin does not belong to a scientific reality. It belongs to a human reality. Medecine has to take into account certain human realities which cannot exist as well defined scientific concept. So it is impossible to have a model where you have a drug and an effect in the model which would be in our experience.

Regards,

- Louis

A next thread typical mainstream philosophical/scientific discussion that relate to the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information”, and “simply” fundamental phenomenon/notion “Consciousness”, appeared on RG; despite that both these phenomenon/notion, and a few other fundamental ones, i.e. also “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, that are obligatorily necessary in this case, since really by humans can be scientifically defined only together,

- in the mainstream philosophy and sciences are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely logically inevitably is only transcendent/mystic something.

Including the posts in this thread really are some really irrational sets of wordings, the authors of which really have only completely instinctive, i.e. transcendent/uncertain/irrational, “knowledge” about what they write. Correspondingly the discussion is rather vivid, composing of some really by no means scientifically grounded claims is rather easy job.

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined/explained/understandable only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where, including, so the thread question “DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EXIST, OR IS IT LIKE INFORMATION?” is really scientifically answered. If quite briefly – in the conception it is rigorously scientifically proventhat there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set,

- and so really the Set’s specific elements “CONSCIOUSNESSES” , including existent version “consciousness on Earth” EXIST; and, at that they fundamentally aren’t something “LIKE INFORMATION”, any consciousness “is made” fundamentally only from “Information”;

- including the fundamental specificity of informational systems “consciousnesses” is in that they fundamentally differ from any/every structure in Matter, and so exist and operate essentially in their spaces that only partially intercross with Matter’s space; etc.

For those readers who really want to understand what the fundamental phenomena/notions above are, more see the linked above paper; to read SS posts and links in the posts on pages 1,2,3 in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition/1 it is useful as well.

Cheers

Consciousness is the self and formed with attitude and behaviour. When particular activities comes it displays conscious in action. Psychology explained it as mind and behaviour. Resulted mind and behaviour is consciousness.

Pramod Kumar Ph.D.

Attitude and behavior are expressions of mental activity, but I would agree if you mean that the mental activity behind that is consciousness. The mental activity is a continuum (of associative memory formation and perceptive reflexes -producing expressions) and it proceeds as a sequence of frames in our experience of life

Now, if one insists that consciousness is the same as information and that both are mutually interchangeable or one is part of the other, the following questions arise: (1) If they are the same, would one say that information is in fact in consciousness? (2) When AI transmits information, when we have various sorts of information other than that by way of AI, etc., are we in any manner receiving consciousness in place of information? If one says only that they are at least of the same nature and are not the same, then they have to be differentiated and at the same time connected to each other. But it is accepted by all that information is also in consciousness, and not vice versa. How then is this possible, if they are of the same nature and status?

Larry Carlson

The functioning of the central nervous system is an automatic process, where we are able to perceive only some results of its functioning but not the process itself.

We have the opportunity to initiate that processing in areas where we have access. The rest is automatic and hidden from perception.

Larry Carlson

without the continuity of reflex perceptions, the energy patterns of consciousness are like disconnected animations.

Even micro-physically, discreteness is acceptable. That does not mean that the entity in which everything moves discretely is not to be called an entity. There exists nothing that has all parts absolutely continuous with all other parts. There exists no entity that with even one little part absolutely continuous with any other.

Frigid temperatures scolded me intensely for wearing lightweight dress pants to a late lunch meeting for which I had to park 1km away. The winter is upon us in North America.

In Spite of it being cold - my brain was working overtime - but was more energy being used? or was it just more slippery trudging along accompanied by mental complaints about my ill preparedness, all using about the same brain energy as usual at the same rate as usual, while the mental contents included a more noisy barrage of grumbly freezing-ness.

Larry Carlson

I never said that information is a substance.

If you mean by substance something absolutely unchanging, then I did not say that consciousness is such a substance.

If you say: "A "form" can be a property such as it scent, texture, sound pitch, sound volume, color, number, taste, fingerprint, etc.)", what may be understood by 'form'? What has been taken up as form in the history of thought? Without clarity on the concept of form in your thinking, what shall I reply!

You said: "Consciousness ... typically entails the atttribution of hedonic values (re comfort/discomfort) to the informative objects with which an organism interacts." Do you mean that consciousness always entail hedonic values, or that it always entails attribution of hedonic values? I ask these questions for clarity as to what you mean, not as a confrontational tactic, please.

Whatever the answers are, I suggest the following. The brain is an organic matter-energy conglomeration where various movements take place, and the brain is within the body, which too is a conglomeration of matter-energy movements. In all these, the movements are finite movements, and the spatio-temporal measurements of any existent matter-energy part will have to be discrete, from the viewpoint of micro-physics.

If so, could we not say that consciousness (not specific awarenesses) can be taken to be those matter-energy movements within the brain and the body, which in themselves have some amount of coordination. I hope you agree that I did not hereby say that consciousness is a sort of Cartesian or other substance.

When one says that information is transferred, I think that the concept of information is loosely defined. What are transferred are matter-energy, and the actual information transferred would have to be a conglomeration of symbols of the configuration of the matter-energy transferred.

But is it the same case with consciousness, which is the part of the brain that is the matter-energy movements within the brain? Information transfer can be has within consciousness too. This need not mean that consciousness is the same as information, or these are both of the same nature, etc.

I do not understand why you detailed so much about information here and not about consciousness. Moreover, if consciousness is the same as information or they are of the same nature, how to admit that information is being transferred also in consciousness and between consciousnesses? Do you perhaps hold that the information transfer that I spoke of here is merely between two brains, and not at all between two consciousnesses?

I read your replies just now. Since I have a cold and fever, I will take some time to reply. Only one thing now: After writing Raphael first, then you began reporting my words as if from Roman!!!

Larry Carlson

Please note: I am writing from the sickbed. Hence the haphazard manner, writing within the text. Please understand me. I have copied your 2 interventions into a Word file and write my thoughts, interspersed into yours.

Raphael: When one says that information is transferred, I think that the concept of information is loosely defined. What are transferred are matter-energy, and the actual information transferred would have to be a conglomeration of symbols of the configuration of the matter-energy transferred.

Larry: No, I don't myself think that information is literally transferred. ((Raphael: If you read the text of “WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition”, where you have written many responses, you will know that I did not say so.)) I think that such a phrase is a figure of speech. ((But I do not also think that it is a figure of speech! What would be a possible way to make information transfer a figure of speech?)) One thing may take on the form of another so as to be in (or similar to) the first things form: to be in- the-form of something else is to be in-form-ed. Hence, information is an action/process... not an entity or substance. ((And thus is it going to be a figure of speech?))

-----------------

Raphael: Roman:If you say: "A "form" can be a property such as it scent, texture, sound pitch, sound volume, color, number, taste, fingerprint, etc.)", what may be understood by 'form'?

Larry: What words mean is to some extent a matter of usage. I think it reasonable to say that the black spots on a banana informs me that it is ripe ((Does this saying not inform that there are black black spots on the banana?)), or that the sour smell of milk informs me that it is not drinkable anymore ((And not that it is sour?)). If so, then I suggest that the root word in the word information (which is "form") can refer to things other than just the literal shape of something. ((Refer to things other than just the literal shape of something? Does that make the meaning of ‘form’?))

------------------

Raphael: Roman:What are transferred are matter-energy, and the actual information transferred would have to be a conglomeration of symbols of the configuration of the matter-energy transferred.

Larry: I don't think that information must be symbolic, or entail symbols. There might be a sign above the bananas saying (stating in a symbolic language) that they are ripe...so as to provide information; but I can also just look at the bananas directly to see for myself that they are ripe without needing the intermediary agent of the sign. ((This sense is not what I meant by ‘symbol’. ANY MATTER-ENERGY CONFIGURATION MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED INTO MY CONSCIOUSNESS FOR ME TO HAVE IT. Instead, there is some symbolization of the configuration within my consciousness. Note: Again, I never said that consciousness is a traditionally coined substance without change. If I have not said so, it is not good to argue against that concept here, too.))

I like your emphasis on matter-energy. Photons from the bananas enter my eyes so, travel along the optic nerve, are converted in various ways so as to somehow produce images ((What are these images? Would you please define and elaborate upon them? Do these images just happen in vacuum? Or, better, are images a sort of symbolic configuration-representative, which we further denotatively express in language using this word ‘image’?)), which I then associate with other images so as to conclude that the light black spots on the bananas indicate that they are ripe but still edible. The only thing that is transferred (and has led or guided me to my conclusion) is energy/matter (not information)... as Einstein would have like us to conclude.

I don't think that we can detect any increase in energy usage in the brain, as Jerry ponders, ((I think Jerry did not mean any miraculous creation of energy out of nothing into the context of the processes within the brain.)) when I start thinking about whether or not to buy the bananas. No doubt the brain uses an unsual amount of energy/calories compared to the rest of the body in any case. But unless I get stressed about the issue, there is not likely to be any particular increase in energy usage simply because I am recalling images and associating them with others. ((Also the energy increase at mental stress, I believe, would not have been help by Jerry as a fresh creation out of nothing.)) Indeed, I suspect that we are experiencing and recalling thousands if not millions of images and associating them throughout the day... no matter what we are doing.

Indeed, I tend to suggest that information refers specifically to those transfers of energy in which something comparatively small (e.g., the image of spots on a banana) lead to some compatively large result or outcome (the action of my buying the bananas at the cash register, taking them home, and eating them). ((IF INFORMATION “REFERS” TO THOSE TRANSFERS OF ENERGY, WHAT EXACTLY COULD BE THE “THAT WHICH REFERS”? THIS IS THE MATTER I AM TRYING TO SYSTEMATIZE IN THE BOOK I HAVE BEEN WRITING. Of course, I plan it out for publication after 3 years. I do write my own arguments there, but study many authors and contemporary scientists and philosophers in this context – except, of course, of the Editor who flings accusations here.))

Similarly, there is no consciousness that exists in addition to matter/energy, imho. ((I TOO!)) Rather, I am more likely to be able to reach the conclusion that the bananas are ripe if I am (consciously) awake rather than asleep, or being aware of and paying attention to my surroundings in the grocery store rather than (semi-connsciously) day dreaming. ((THIS STATEMENT IS NO CAUSAL EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ACTIONS AND EVENTS THAT YOU MENTION.)) I am also more likely to have the sensation of being a self that consciously (deliberately) chooses which bananas to buy, even though what I buy ultimately depends only upon which set of impulses in my body/brain are most intense. ((LET US COME TO EXPLAINING WHAT THE INFORMATION HERE IS! WE SET OUT TRYING TO DEFINE AND DESCRIBE THAT.))

Hence, despite the popular and practical way we think about this sort of situation in everyday life, from a physics standpoint, there is no actual entity or substance called information that enters my consciousness, nor consciouness which then decides to buy the bananas. ((CLEAR!)) Rather, my body/brain is in-formed ((USING ‘IN-FORMED’ SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF BEGGING THE QUESTION. THE CONFIGURATION OF MATTER-ENERGY, WITHIN THE BRAIN-LEVEL ACTIVITIES THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS, NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED HERE IN SUCH A WAY THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE EXPLAINED. I do not think that this would complete the explanation. We have information expressed in languages of all kinds, including via mathematical equations, via algorithms, etc. I think the work of explaining these from within a system is a tedious job. I try to conjure up a system for this; of course, this is not an ultimate system. Others will critique me or even overthrow my ideas. But this is the game into which I should throw myself.)) that the bananas are edible, and I purchase them accordingly, while I am consciously (awake, attentive, engaged in thinking).

The thinking itself is largely a matter of associating images ((How to explain these images in terms of what really happens?)) and juggling them in accordance with what seems comfortable. My recalling that I had read that ripe bananas were still good to eat provides a comforting and familiar association of images. The fact that the association of images had practical utility and eventually led to my enjoyment of the bananas at home added to the overall (hedonic) comfort... as well as contributing to my 'thriving and surviving'. ((I would not prefer to expatiate the matter using such psychological-sounding explanations. I would rather keep silence on such statements.))

Nowadays, I gather that there are robotic devices which can take overly ripe bananas off a conveyer belt and discard them. Again, it is a matter of word usage as to whether it is proper English to say that the robotic device is getting information from its inbuilt scanner about the degree to which the bananas are ripe. ((VERY GOOD. WHY NOT GENERALIZE THE CONCEPT OF INFORMATION AS SUITABLE TO BE USED IN THE CONTEXT OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS?)) In Spielberg's movie about A.I., robots outlive humans and develop their own advanced civilizations. If so, it only seems reasonable to presume that they too will exchange information... though no doubt of a somewhat different sort.

Grammatical construction of words can be misleading.

A "gerund is a verbal that ends in -ing and functions as a noun. The term verbal indicates that a gerund, like the other two kinds of verbals, is based on a verb and therefore expresses action or a state of being.*

But grammarians will tell you that the word running when used as a gerund still maintains its verbal connotations. When someone says, "running is invigorating," for example, one thinks about a runner in action.

The word "information" is much like that. Though we tend to think of static things such as words and books when we think of information, this is a narrow way of looking at things. ((CERTAINLY!)) In practice, information is an activity in which energy/matter is conveyed ((HONESTLY, I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS AN ACTIVITY: BEHIND IT THERE IS THE ACTIVITY OR PROCESS OF MATTER-ENERGY TRANSFER.)) in a matter so that one thing is replicated by or corresponds to another so that some outcome ensues. Typically, some outcomes are preferred over others (e.g., by living things).... so that it might be better to say that information refers to a process, rather than just to an activity. ((NOW, WHY NOT SAY ALL EXISTENTS / ENTITIES ARE PROCESSES? PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICALLY, ANYTHING EXISTENT SHOULD BE NON-VACUOUS, THAT IS, EXTENDED. EVEN A PHOTON AS A WAVICLE MUST BE EXTENDED IF IT MUST EXIST. FURTHER, SOME SORT OF CHANGE MUST BE HAPPENING WITHIN IT AND FROM IT. THESE ARE WHAT I CALL THE EXHAUSTIVE IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTENCE. In this sense, activities, events, etc. are concepts based on the fundament of Extension-Change-wise existence. This is what I call Universal Causation. If anything exists, it must be extended and must have some change. What else is causality? A unit of causation with its cause-part and effect-part is what I call a process. This is A PROCESS. When we say that everything is in process, what is meant is that everything is processual. IF INFORMATION TRANSFER CAN BE TERMED PROCESSUAL, IT MEANS THAT THERE ARE MATTER-ENERGY PROCESSES BEHIND INFORMATION TRANSFER. BUT JUST CALLING IT IN-FORMATION DOES NOT SAY MUCH. HOW TO SYSTEMATICALLY DEAL WITH INFORMATION AS PROCESSUAL, BUT NOT AS A PROCESS?))

---

Consciousness also refers, imho, to a process ((I TOO THINK THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PROCESS OF MANY PROCESSES IN THE SENSE OF BEING A CONGLOMERATION OF MATTER-ENERGY PROCESSES. INFORMATION IS STRICTLY PROCESSUAL, AND NOT A PROCESS. OF COURSE, ‘INFORMATION’ IS BEING USED BY MANY TO MEAN PROCESSES. BUT I THINK WHAT THEY MEAN ARE THE PROCESSES BEHIND THE INFORMATION TRANSFER, AND NOT INFORMATION PER SE.)), since information is transferred and some outcomes are preferred over (and/or more beneficial and life-sustaining than) others. Indeed, those who are most conscious (awake, mentally sound, actively engaged, attentive, alert, seeking knowledge) are actively engaged in aborbing, associating, and applying specific pieces of information in the process of intentionality. But again, it is a misuse of language to presume that consciousness itself (as a noun entity) is active, decisive, willful, or decisive.

When discussing information in terms of living things, it seems necessary that the recipient that is 'in-formed' is sufficienty conscious to (meaningfully) utiize the information. Whether the source or sender of the informatoin is conscious seems less imperative. I can "get information" about trees by attending a lecture or reading a book. Similarly, I can give others information about trees. But most objects (such as books) cannot get information from me, and I am sure that the librarian would raise an eyebrow were I to start talking to the books about where they came from.

((LET US FORGET ABOUT THE DECISION- AND WILLING CAPACITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. IF IN YOUR OPINION CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PROCESS, I AM HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

NOW THINK OF THIS LAPTOP. IS IT AN ENTITY OR A PROCESS? I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE CALL AS ENTITIES ARE IN FACT PROCESSES IN EVERY NEAR-INFINITESIMAL PROPER PART.

THE BRAIN TOO IS A PROCESS.))

Raphael Neelamkavil

Even though your questions are aimed at Larry Carlson

You mentioned "The thinking itself is largely a matter of associating images ((How to explain these images in terms of what really happens?))"

I will rephrase your question first "Thinking is a series of related perceptions [, or engrams=images&or/saved sounds&or/feelings etc.] re-activated from memory ((How to explain these images in terms of what really happens?))"

The reason I reshaped your question is that - although Larry uses the term images, and it is commonly used to refer to the form of a reactivated memory, or the form of mental contents being linked into memory, the term engram is the proper general term for the memory trace, each of which represents a discrete snapshot of neurons that had been active at the same moment and (somehow) became linked together into a unit that can later be recalled as memory of that time. The general case for recall is perception which results when you see something and perceive something about what you see reflexively, for example you may see a yellow rubber duck, and reflexively recognize what it is from memory, the shape and colors had been associated into an "image" or engram along with the label duck, maybe "rubber duck" "ducky" or what ever, and any perception you have of that yellow duck automatically is associated with all the others naturally in an instant, such that you will now have many associated images that can emerge when you see the yellow or the rubber shape or part of it, and you will perceive or reflexively reactivate neurons that were involved in the associated engram cluster - you may even yell out "rubber ducky" in an enthusiastic perception.

The initial experience involved activating neurons in the visual cortex and throughout the brain including language centers, pleasure or pain feelings, reasons for being in the room you were in, people around, the clothing....

These associations are made automatically without any effort or intent, and the perceptions are made also reflexively causing reactivation of those neurons, bringing back the sound, the feelings, the reason for that experience etc. (because of that I do not like saying that we associate this with that, it just is that way because of it happening together in the same place in our experience, or it is like something similar - our perception requires that something be familiar or it will not be perceived except as strange (- possibly threatening))

Unfortunately using the term "image" instead of engram, makes you wonder "if it is indeed an image, then who is looking at it, and where is his eyeball"

And while the cat video shows that it does include an arrangement of activated neurons that resemble a rectangular area like a screen, that also is misleading.

What is important about the engrams is that they include the gestalt feeling of those experiences in memory, and as we have sequences of perception, those previous feelings and associated sights and sounds are reactivated in mind - we feel them again - we can hear voices from memory and see images in dreams which is the very same thing, reactivation of engrams, but we are not using our eyes and ears to perceive these things, the mere reactivation of the original cortical neurons from those experiences is real enough on their own to help us to navigate our lives between what is familiar and what is not yet known.

(things are known by what is associated with them and how that feels.)

[[We have mentioned frontal and prefrontal cortex a few times in regard to awareness and an overview of active mental contents, and the image that is formed there does include parts of visual cortex activity - so you could say that pFC is the true retina or eye (third eye in Asiatic lore - eye of wisdom, etc.), in the event that the person is aware of his vision that way, but realistically it is not an eye at all - it is just an additional associative cortical zone, one that gets copies of all the other zones and can, by associative reflex, modify the state of the amygdala and which parts of the thalamus the hypothalamus will suppress, in accord with the remembered feelings perceived by the content within the cortical region]].

Jerry Waese, Thanks. I liked your intervention. I have not yet begun with writing the chapters that have to do with the concept of images, information, consciousness etc. What I have is just a few pages on these. I have already cited a few articles there, using also the term 'engram'. My difficulty now is to connect to these chapters the general matter that I have already developed. I have some ways to do it, but they require much elaboration. I have enough time. So, I have been moving step by step.

Larry Carlson

so just to be more science than poetry, the photon does not reach the eye with info and then go into the brain. it is the info about a remote point in the visual field.

What if the light from that angle is pink?

Angle position color and ( with more photons) intensity. All information no?

In physics colors are definitely discernible by wavelength of the EM vibration, as shown in image attached, while white light is a mix of all of them or of an equal red + blue + yellow (green if using RGB computer mixing).

Photons which are the particle aspect of the EM waves would continue the feature of color that light has in general.

So the photon may be dancing with the red color @ ~700 nanometers wave length with 1/4 amplitude of blue (@~580nm) and yellow(@~600nm) which would produce a bright pink. Can photons only vibrate in pure sine waves?

I think not!

The wave form mix for pink would appear to be somewhat of a square wave incorporating the harmonics of the white with the red.

Reflected or radiant light certainly has wavelength and by corollary frequency as well and pink is definitely a color produced but it is not a pure color of just one frequency it is a shaped wave like that of a flute rather than that of a tuning fork which is sinusoidal.

SO if you are reading in physics that leads you to think that pink does not exist, and then also that color does not exist you have discovered some perplexing physics. NOTE this is not the first time your pink problem has appeared here, and I may not have given it any resistance, but if it is going to keep coming up we will have to do more digging to illustrate that pink really is a detectable color.

What was most important in my previous example was that the ray of light (photon or wave - whatever) which hits a particular rod or cone in the retina optically, is coming along a particular angle from a particular point source in space, or it would not hit that rod or cone.

To the brain it is telemetry of what is out there at that angle, and telemetry is basic information. without that kind of telemetry about the world around us we would not survive in the wild.

Anyway, if you want to see it in other terms that is fine, but I would hate to lose you due to disagreements about basic physics. No matter, I have been arguing with my wife about color for 35 years. Serious fights - you would not believe, I always gave in but I did run her through a checking process to the best of my ability. I was gentle, and we are still a couple.

You have to realize, as an artist and software developer not only have I had to develop the skill to match any color that I want to match using acrylic paint, but I can also do it with RGB in Hex code, and if I concentrate I can do it in CMYK, but CMYK is not my forte - I am more of a video techie than a print techie. On several jobs I have had to whoop up accurate colors in a jiffy with no interface except a green screen - before Windows and Mac.

At the same time, I realize that the feel of the color, is the same as the feel of the name, the feel of the hamburger, and of my own hand - it is an entirely associative experience of each part in concert with what is associated with it from past memories and current context.

Jerry,

In physics , light is a spectrum of wavelenght but there is no colour associated with light in physics. In the atmosphere, there is no sound. Sound are perceptual phenomena which animals experience when their ear received air pressure waves. In physics these air pressure wave exist but sound does not exist in physics. The taste of food does not exist in physics. It exist for animals having a sense of taste. Odours do not exist in physics. These are perceptual phenomena.

Lets return to colour. What is colour then? Most animal do not perceive colours; we a a trichromatic colour space while most animal see only in shade of greys. The reason is that our primate ancestors were fruit eaters and the colour of a fruit allow to discriminate from the rest of the vegetation but most importantly, most fruit change colour and have a particular colour at maturity. This colour of the fruit does not correspond at all to the wavelenght your eyes received from the fruit. This would be useless. What the fruit eater needs to know throw colour is an estimate of the reflectance function of the surface of the fruit. So colours are reflectance estimate which is very different from wavelenghts.

Regards,

- Louis

where in physics are there no wavelengths of color?

I just posted an image with the wavelength ranges for colors, I did not make that up

where in physics are there no wavelengths for musical notes?

what scientific world are you from with such contradictions?

yes some colors are reflected and others absorbed, of course, some surfaces are different than others, but still light has colors otherwise they would not be reflected or absorbed.

did both you and Larry go to the same bar tonight? I need a drink!

Here is my definition of consciousness:

It is a loop of information flow between the awareness of the past and naw experiences with the ability to predict future. This phenomenon has also abilitity to discriminate its inner states (selfawareness) from the states of the environment-universe (awareness) and has a free will and is goal oriented (for survival).

And this computer like program is executed with infinite speed , by quantum entanglment probablu at the cell level. Single cell must have a consciousness as well which is encoded in DNA.

I think that consciousness is depend on the stimulus and responses whereas no response means no consciousness?. If instead of stimulus we use smell as a variable the results are more logical and concise. The colour bands are definitely different from the visual stimuli.

Larry Carlson

ONLY ONE BASIC SUGGESTION:

Larry: "I would rephrase what I wrote to say that what we refer to as information IS the transfer of energy. More to the point, the color (a type of "form") of the banana is transferred through air to my eyes/brain where they are further transmuted in to a visual image.

Of course, a single photon will not produce a meaningful visual image, as Jerry point but a steady stream of them in a particular pattern at a particular wavelengths will. There is no actual information (as a noun); though again, we can say that the receiving agent (myself) has an image in (the) form of the blackened bananas so as to be in-formed."

Raphael: Do you think that INFORMATION IS THE TRANSFER OF ENERGY or INFORMATION IS ENERGY?

If it is the transfer of energy, then the question to be discussed is what the transfer is. Moreover, transfer of information would then become transfer of transfer of energy....

If information is taken as energy, then clearly, by reason of the principle of interconvertibility of matter and energy, information can become matter too. (I say this because I think that energy wavicles are not vacuous, hence are matter wavicles moving at a contextually sufficiently fixed "energy velocity".)

Larry Carlson

you wrote:

• "Hence,
• (In)former-->message form-->form of received message-->informed receiver
• As opposed to the more expressive actions of someone trying to wave down a bus to stop who has intentionality and purpose (some perceived outcome). If the bus driver pauses to ponder whether the waver is swatting a fly, saying goodbye, or bidding him to stop, we have:
• (Ex)former (the waver)-->message form (waving hand)-->form of received message-->interpretatively informed receiver.
• These are all activities, and no doubt include waves, energy, angles, geometry, images, perceptions, etc.; yet there is no actual thing called "information" being transferred, and no actual entity called consciousness that is doing anything."

The scope of telemetry includes both the capture of events by a sensor of environmental (in)formation as well as (expressed)formation. whether it is reflected light from the sun or generated within the radiant form, telemetry of sensation will receive the form and the appropriate nerves will fire, while the photons or EM wave energy becomes part of some other forms and is carried off in the blood or expelled in the next out breath.

The information to the eye resolves in the brain as an awareness of a position in the world with a sparkle or steady light (any color that you do not want to argue about will be chosen) - the position is evaluated by which part of the visual field is affected and the angle of the eye in the socket and the angle of the head on the neck.

The same goes for the expressed formation, except that the changes over time keep the mental content going and the observer's curiosity can take over to resolve a man waving.

So I am sticking with my original position here that information can be new telemetry without having been collected as data in advance, or it can be data provided by others which may be composed or interpreted as telemetry, from which meaning can be contextually obtained or explicitly read according to convention.

Raphael Neelamkavil Larry Carlson

• "Raphael: Do you think that INFORMATION IS THE TRANSFER OF ENERGY or INFORMATION IS ENERGY?"

This is a wrong choice actually. back to the eye for a moment, a highly evolved visual field sensor. As a sensor it is useful for detailed telemetry obtained from the environment in the range of the visible spectrum of EM.

The eye is not involved in the transfer of information or energy, but it picks up the random EM energy that it is exposed to and promptly extracts form and details from that exposure and sends it to the brain.

Too much emphasis on energy is being made in relation to the information obtained visually. you could say that in terms of the scenarios put forth the light energy going into eyes is less than 1/1,000,000,000 of the energy in the scene. However what is relevant is that the eye as a sensor is transducing light energy into something that may be informative telemetry and or information prepared to be read conventionally.

Jerry Waese, I agree with you on this. But my question is whether information is finally reducible to energy and/or matter, or is it a mystical thing, or do we have to explain it differently. I take the last as the solution and try to develop a system of thinking. As I have admitted earlier, my sort of system need not be acceptable; but it will do something in the direction.

That is a valuable effort Raphael Neelamkavil - I hope this discussion helps you develop a compelling synthesis.

After all, Messaging and Information can provide joy as well as efficiency in life.

Jerry Waese, thanks.

The discussion helps. In fact, I have already developed the basic system a few years ago, but with respect to the concept of causality in quantum physics and in cosmology. Now I use the basic ideas there in order to give a conceptual foundation to the concept of information within the context of language, AI, and mind. Many of the interventions and replies here are not of much use for me. I open the discussion especially when the intervention is addressed to me. You know how one person has been responding in the other discussion. Even after repeated requests for more than 2 years, he is being bossy even now. Hence, nowadays I am a bit detatched from all these!

Its a word. The definition resides in dictionarries.

Experiential reality is a matter dynamics that cleary indicete that reality is a relationship we form with the real. Reality and consciousness are one and the same. Until we take the time to model visual awarenss we are unlikely to understand more about the dynamics.

Dear Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz,

''It is a loop of information flow between the awareness of the past and naw experiences with the ability to predict future. This phenomenon has also abilitity to discriminate its inner states (selfawareness) from the states of the environment-universe (awareness) and has a free will and is goal oriented (for survival).

And this computer like program is executed with infinite speed , by quantum entanglment probablu at the cell level. Single cell must have a consciousness as well which is encoded in DNA.''

You here mix experience with the explanation. ''Consciousness'' is ''experience'' , ''awareness'' and these are primary facts that need no explanation for being established. The word ''consciousness'' is a word that exist for a while in language and never needed to receive a scientific explanation for people to understand its meaning. Do you understand the word ''marriage''. Probably. Do you need a scientific explanation of marriage in order to grasp the meaning of this word? I do not think so. The same for the word ''consciousness''., ''experience'' and ''awareness'' their meaning do not need a scientific explanation.

All the type of experience you mention are effectively important for the life of organisms but is your life simply about survival? I do not think so. Yes survival is a priority but in some cases not the top priority of an animals. Many animal mother will risk and thus loose their life for protecting babies. Not exactly putting a top priority to its own life. The life of the family here is top priority. More importantly as an objection to this functional perspectives on all the conscious phenomena, none of this explain why these functions are conscious. We understand the usefullness of these functions but why this require them to be conscious is'nt explain. Why most biological functions are totally unconscious and some are. The usefullness of those that are conscious does not explain why they need to be conscious since nobody ever explain what is the function of a conscious function to be conscious. This has been clearly pointed out by Chalmer in the mid 1990.

Lets forget this aspects and now focus on the substance of your model.

Yes consciousness is'nt simply about awareness of what is outside the body. It is ofter about some important state of the body. If you put your hand on a hot plate, it is good that you feel the burning and that a rapid hand retraction reflex kick in before further skin burning take place. If you push a load , it is important that you be aware of how to place your articulation, not too close to their limit, that you feel muscle pain and articulation pain informing you of how close to the injury you are. We are biped and so have to balance constantly our body and need to know how we are placed and need to be informed of our state of motion and movement. But instead conceiving ourself as bodies , we should rather conceive ourself (or any living organism) as Growing Self-creating Interaction. Our body is just a mean to carry out this interaction, i.e. our life. Interaction suppose feedback. Interaction means a Sense-Acting-Loop which a sensory-motor system is part of but what is outside the body is part of too. It is integral to the interaction that you are. You are not your body but an intetaction.

Where the quantum fit in this? It cannot fit at the actual level of a macroscopic organism; the interaction of a macroscopic organism cannot be described by quantum physics; Process within cells at the molecular levels obviously needs to be described using quantum physics. But this level of description is useless at the macroscopic level. Why some physiological process are conscious, why consciousness exist is'nt explain by any type of scientific explanations since they are functional explanations and there is no functional reason for these process to be conscious in order for them to accomplish their function; Quantum mechanics does not help there either. The question why consciousness exist is'nt a functional question to be answer and so bringing in quantum mechanics is'nt helping since there is no functional question here. I have my own answer which is a development of Shrodinger's answer to what consciousness is? but leave it asidee for now but it is not a scientific answer. It cannot be since there is no scientific question to be answered here. One first realise this.

Regards,

- Louis

Louis Brassard can you simplify that, and please run a spell checker first?

John Jupe,

What do you mean by "reality is a relationship we form with the real"? If I may take 'the real' as 'reality', I may put it in other words, 'real is also the relationship with the real'...!

What do you mean by reality? Existent beings, or our feeling of reality?

maybe he means real is substantiality (i.e. that which can be substantiated)

so the relationship would be reality = self substantiality.

I find this statement very misleading:

• "If information is taken as energy, then clearly, by reason of the principle of interconvertibility of matter and energy, information can become matter too"

Let us say that all the signals arriving at the body, are transduced without loss to energy (which they are not) and then conducted along neurons to the brain (which is true) and then introduced to the cortex as an informative configuration of neuron activation triggers (which is more or less true) and then resulting field energy (already we are an order of magnitude greater in total signal message energy, as there is loss at every stage) triggers branching pyramidal neurons to interlink all the currently active mental contents into a gestalt engram by depositing ARC protein where the P-branches connect with active cortical neurons of the incoming informative configuration (i.e. the current active mental contents).

We use up and waste energy absorbing the information (it is not negentropic).

None of the incoming energy was directly converted by atomic reactions into mass, and all of the mass that exists after had already existed before - but some tiny bits have been moved to create a re-activatable pattern of residue of the electric field impression of the original information.

E=mc2 is an equivalence relationship of a balanced atomic reaction for which there is no evidence that such occurs in the body; so we really should dispense with that direction of thinking pretty much altogether.

The energy that entered the system through the senses is only enough to trigger neurons from their resting states, and each neuron fired using its own internal source of energy. Not only that, if the (less than a) microgram of ARC protein laid down over the period of a second or so throughout the cortexwere to be converted to energy (by an atomic reaction) then not much of the person's head would remain to obtain benefit.

FInally the energy used to convey information is only interesting in the way that the process can be optimized to use less energy without impacting the system, otherwise it is not so much about the amount of energy but the pattern of neural activation that is made, how that fieels, and what that means when it feels like that.

While none of this should be considered in the context of nuclear reactions, it is not yet clear whether, at each point of triggering and or transduction that some kind of quantum transitions occur, but there is nothing to suggest entanglements. Photosynthesis may in fact involve quantum effects that are not entanglement but which enable the transduction of light energy into the chemistry of making sugars etc.

I think he is using a fast charger for his battery as we speak!

Dear Larry,

Colours are not out there but a surface of a fruit has an intrinsic property called its reflectance. It describe how it reflect light at each frequency in the visible spectrum. So the reflextance of a surface is a reflectance function. The human vision attribute a colour to a surface. We can consider it as a 3D vector. These three numbers of a colour could be considered as a 3D approximation of the reflectance function of the surface. Why 3D, why not 4D, 5D, or 2D colour space. If you take a great sample of reflectance function of surfaces present in the terrestrial environment and you make a best 2D approximation, your approximation will be about 40% while a 3D colour space will give an 90% approximation and then 4D something like 93%, 5D give yout 95%. So you get a very poor approximation with a 2D colour space and a very good one for 3D colour space and almost no gain for 4D, 5D colour spaces. This explain why biological evolution equipped our primate ancestors with 3 differently sensitive cones, each type of cone has a special sensitivity pigment. What actual colour qualia each colour correspond cannot be measured by experiement. Coloremetric experiement which established what is called the Standard Human Colour Observer do not in any way specify a colour qualia but only specify a colour code which will ensure that what person A call Red is what person B call Red. What is the Red qualia, the actual colour sensation of a person, is not measured by coloremetry. It is totally out of colormetry. We all assume that our Red is everybody else Red but nothing can prove this and nothing can disprove this. Science cannot go there. It seem logic to assume that all our Red are the same since we are more or less the same biologically so it would be strange that we would not experience the same Red but Science cannot help us here. But although colour qualia are not out there, they correspond to estimate of surface reflectance which are objective object surface property. So colour qualia pointer to estimate of objective surface property and not simply a purely subjective property.

Jerry Waese, Larry Carlson

To Larry-------

Larry: Imho, people refer to information as a "thing" that can be transferred, conveyed, put on shelves, shared, etc. out of practical necessity. No point in pedantically talking about chains and feedback loops of energy/matter transfer when we tell someone about what we just read in a newspaper or heard on the t.v.

The notion that informaton is interconvertible with matter/energy was propounded by, for example, those who interpreted Landauer's principle as saying that it was. This is a complicated topic that involved a number of top physicsts for several decades, of course, with regards to the notion of Maxwell's Demon in particular. I am no expert on the details (nor anything else), but, as I understand it, recent reserarch has led to the conclusion that information is not physical, and is NOT interconvertible or intertransformable with energy.

In paricular, I gather that the claim that information is interconvertible with energy is tantamount to the claim that information is physical... since energy is considered to be physical. The issue of logical and physical irreversitiblity seem to be key concepts.

Raphael: Your use of the word ‘pedantically’ may or may not refer to me. But, to tell you, I am not speaking of who presented the principle of interconvertibility. I am suggesting the implications of holding that information is energy or that information is transfer of energy. Both these, in my opinion, are gross and not pinpointed enough. Similarly, also explanations like: “No point in pedantically talking about chains and feedback loops of energy/matter transfer when we tell someone about what we just read in a newspaper or heard on the t.v.”

To Jerry------

Jerry:

“E=mc2 is an equivalence relationship of a balanced atomic reaction for which there is no evidence that such occurs in the body; so we really should dispense with that direction of thinking pretty much altogether.”

Raphael: My aim was not to say that nuclear reaction takes place in the brain-body nexus. In principle, what we call ENERGY IS PHYSICALLY CONVERTIBLE INTO MATTER. So, if information is energy, then in principle it is convertible to matter. But is information, if taken as energy, such? If not, IS INFORMATION ENERGY?

Larry, 2 days ago: “I would rephrase what I wrote to say that what we refer to as information IS the transfer of energy. More to the point, the color (a type of "form") of the banana is transferred through air to my eyes/brain where they are further transmuted in to a visual image.”