(2021-06-20, 12:12 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: - this de-materialization of a plan and seeing it as an informational object fundamentally can not capture the information necessary to originate the plan or to originate the entity that made the plan.Modern science has buried NS + RM = Evolution. It was buried, not by thought experiments and philosophy, but by the hard data. There is no mystery in the data, and it is clear that information science and physiology has found means for evolution that includes organisms actively gaining information for their own benefit purposefully.
. The term "object for observation" refers to an act of observation that inherently is an act carried out by a conscious entity, whereas an "object" is a discrete thing that is fundamentally in a different existential realm than consciousness.
And I submit that modern science has no idea whatsoever of what the answer to these mysteries is, as there is not even a glimpse of a "light at the end of the tunnel" in research attempting to understand consciousness.
I think you are fighting a demon that has already been defeated.
I simply disagree with Mysterianism and see science untangling the natural events that underlie reality. I am going to stay away from answering the ontological and semantic questions you capably present. There is pragmatic and comprehensive evidence at hand.
Consciousness is an abstract term and includes dozens of information gathering pathways. Understanding consciousness in the whole, starts with understanding the interacting parts and how they work together. That requires scientific methods for gathering data and analysis. The measurement for such - is the bit and particularly groups of bits of mutual information.
When quantification of an observation is made - bits are measure to determine the amount of mutual information gained. The information structures (variables) can be quantified at source A, before observation, with bits found at observer B after communication. Those reproduced bits at the receiver, including their corresponding meanings, are the focus of science. And these transformative patterns of bits define what is communication, just like units of force define what is energy.
Point One: if an organism knows something, science untangles that by a measurement of mutual information.
Observation is not magic, if something has been observed, there will be evidence that mutual information has been gained. The term essences has a meaning of chemical smells (especially in North Jersey). It has no place in a defining a measurable thing outside of olfactory responses.
The goal is not to solve age old philosophical arguments. The goal is to see biological plans as a natural process and see how they work. The information that is a plan is so recognized, because of it is mutual information with a predicted outcome. If a program (information object) is a plan, we can measure its mutual information with its start state environment, its active process and its predicted outcome. No magic.
If you have a program that recreates activity for removing material from the block of marble that left a statue of David, you would know (have the mutual information) for what is needed to physically create David. A program to recreate the ideas incorporated in the David shape - is not as simple.
Saying that a program to sculpt David doesn't meet other expectations is a distraction. Information science is not magic either. It does stuff and that stuff can be tested with certainty or it can be unresolved. The information that was at the root of the development of physical Michelangelo, could be specified if there is testable DNA in his remains. It likewise, will not address the the art he created.
However, there are programs that can parse proportion and aesthetic senses. They can measure ratios and advise some of the things that are beautiful in the statue. We can look at the art before and since and discover relational aspects to compare and contrast. Of course, there is no magic programs or computers to solve all mysteries at once. But they do increase the potential for deeper understanding.
Bio-evolution includes special kinds of informational processes. We are learning more every day about how they work. Unraveling the physical and informational science will tell us a lot about our reality as physical and informational agents. It may define how we use meaningful ideas, but it isn't going to tell us the meaning of life.
Science does not directly address divine plans. Science however, is moving forward, and I for one am highly optimistic about recent discoveries. These informational discoveries with lead us to better understand how meaningful experience is at the center of mind.
I cited this paper once before. It is exactly what I'm talking about.
Quote:Increase in Mutual Information During Interaction with the Environment Contributes to Perception
Daya Shankar Gupta 1,* and Andreas Bahmer 2
1 Biology Department, Camden County College, Blackwood, NJ 08012, USA
2 Comprehensive Hearing Center, ENT Clinic, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany;
Abstract: Perception and motor interaction with physical surroundings can be analyzed by the
changes in probability laws governing two possible outcomes of neuronal activity, namely the
presence or absence of spikes (binary states). Perception and motor interaction with the physical
environment are partly accounted for by a reduction in entropy within the probability distributions of
binary states of neurons in distributed neural circuits, given the knowledge about the characteristics
of stimuli in physical surroundings. This reduction in the total entropy of multiple pairs of circuits in
networks, by an amount equal to the increase of mutual information, occurs as sensory information
is processed successively from lower to higher cortical areas or between different areas at the same
hierarchical level, but belonging to different networks. The increase in mutual information is partly
accounted for by temporal coupling as well as synaptic connections as proposed by Bahmer and
Gupta (Front. Neurosci. 2018). We propose that robust increases in mutual information, measuring
the association between the characteristics of sensory inputs’ and neural circuits’ connectivity patterns,
are partly responsible for perception and successful motor interactions with physical surroundings.
The increase in mutual information, given the knowledge about environmental sensory stimuli and
the type of motor response produced, is responsible for the coupling between action and perception...
Point Two - Psi is mutual information that an organism gains without a physical signal. It is recorded observations without a physical process. I assert there is a process and science and logic can make it known.