3 Substances in 3 Environments

[Laird]

AI discussion shifted here, to the AI megathread.

[Laird]

I present a metric to measure mind

I would define mind simply as the ability to detect and manipulate real-world probability waves.

We have very different definitions and understandings of mind. Yours doesn't even include phenomenal experience, let alone thought, and despite your affirmation of free will, "measuring" mind "in an informational environment" still strikes me as overly deterministic in its implications. It's probably not productive to say more than that, so I'll leave it there.

We have very different definitions and understandings of mind. Yours doesn't even include phenomenal experience, let alone thought, and despite your affirmation of free will, "measuring" mind "in an informational environment" still strikes me as overly deterministic in its implications. It's probably not productive to say more than that, so I'll leave it there.

I guess I find it interesting that you have such strong anticipation of my ideas.  I hope you will engage sincerely.

My empirically functional definition of mind has the benefit of quantification.  As in QM, the outcome happens after observation.  Experience is not ignored, but is the interaction of sensation with reality. 5 physical senses and additionally - senses that observe the other senses.  The sense of experience comes from real contact with the informational activity in our environments.  And while you may cling to the common physicalist's interpretation, I choose to think that it pragmatic to acknowledge actual and substantial information pulsing in the real world as probability waves. 

Do you acknowledge that it is unresolved as to the meaning of the wave function?  Its formulator saw it real and today it is cast as knowledge (meaningful info).

 Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, although he thought that there had to be some other as-yet-unknown underlying reality. But others, such as Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, considered the wavefunction, at least initially, to be a real physical object.

The Copenhagen interpretation later fell out of popularity, but the idea that the wavefunction reflects what we can know about the world, rather than physical reality, has come back into vogue in the past 15 years with the rise of quantum information theory, Valentini says.

Laird,  Is this where to start your disagreement?  If there is an informational environment -- it can go a long way to supporting Psi and those who need to defend it.

[Laird]

I guess I find it interesting that you have such strong anticipation of my ideas.

Well, I was responding to what you wrote, and I even quoted it, but also in the context of your writing on this board in general.

I hope you will engage sincerely.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from our engaging. I find it hard to decipher you, and to the extent that I succeed, I find gaps in what you say, so it would be likely to be a frustrating encounter for both of us.

No offence, but I'll leave it to those who understand you and your paradigm better to engage with you and it. I will simply say in the spirit of conciliation that I do agree that information is important, and that it could be useful to bring it into the conversation in general. I hope that you have better success with other members!

My empirically functional definition of mind has the benefit of quantification.  As in QM, the outcome happens after observation.  Experience is not ignored, but is the interaction of sensation with reality. 5 physical senses and additionally - senses that observe the other senses.  The sense of experience comes from real contact with the informational activity in our environments.  And while you may cling to the common physicalist's interpretation, I choose to think that it pragmatic to acknowledge actual and substantial information pulsing in the real world as probability waves.

Curious how you might take Faggin's view of Live Information described here:

The only references I see to minds are in the context of acting on information objects.

Can you define an "informational object"?

David

[Laird]

Can you define an "informational object"?

I could probably have a try, but given that stephenw introduced the term, your question is probably best directed at him.

I could probably have a try, but given that stephenw introduced the term, your question is probably best directed at him.

Well it is surely desirable that we debate using terms that are well defined!

It is my contention that the Third Way in biology uses such terms to obfuscate the fact that evolution by natural selection is the only mechanism that could in principle enable large scale evolution to proceed without invoking a creative force of some kind.

Unfortunately, From previous discussions with Stephen, I think whatever response he gives will still make use of undefined terminology - so I'd like to discover how you would define an "informational object" 

The Third Way - including Stephen - want to deny that evolution is driven by RM+NS but still claim they are following materialistic principles.

David

[Laird]

@David001, I don't see it as appropriate for me to define Stephen's terms for the purposes of debate, especially given that I don't want to be part of that debate (I don't know enough about (evolutionary) biology for that).

Well it is surely desirable that we debate using terms that are well defined!

It is my contention that the Third Way in biology uses such terms to obfuscate the fact that evolution by natural selection is the only mechanism that could in principle enable large scale evolution to proceed without invoking a creative force of some kind.

Unfortunately, From previous discussions with Stephen, I think whatever response he gives will still make use of undefined terminology - so I'd like to discover how you would define an "informational object" 

The Third Way - including Stephen - want to deny that evolution is driven by RM+NS but still claim they are following materialistic principles.

David

A number of questions, a simple google of the term gives sensible definitions.  I will start with a quote of a more formal way I am using the term.

 According to Luciano Floridi, an "information object" refers to any entity that can be understood as a cluster of data, considered as a meaningful unit with inherent structure, essentially viewing reality as a network of interconnected information "objects" rather than simply physical things; this concept is central to his "philosophy of information" where he argues that all entities can be analyzed as information objects at different levels of abstraction.

This definition works for my purpose, to understand information in an environment and having ecology.  Physics can be simulated in a complete manner.  This is a very different view of an information object, as something people only have as a thought.  A person can have a thought of a cathedral, but an architect can make it an information object for practical use.

In data processing, there is a simpler view. 

 A well-defined piece of information, definition, or specification that requires a name to identify its use in an instance of communication.

  https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/information_object

*********************************************************************************

I don't think there is a party-line among members of the Third Way.  Most are researchers or professional practicing a living.  Their is no funded research by the Third Way (that I've seen).  RM+ NS is much deader than you are letting on.

You do pose a great question: is the output of the Third Way folks enough to dispute Divine action?  Not in any way, IMHO!  Are many atheist or agnostic - probably.  Here is the 3rd guy of the founding group.  He and I are not on the same page about mind.  But his narrative of bio-evolution is mine.  Mental evolution is the answer to fill in the picture.  Skills we can study and measure objectively change phenotypes. 

  In BEEM, author and engineer Raju Pookottil boldly diverges from the Darwinian theory of natural selection and offers a thought provoking counter-hypothesis for the evolution of all living organisms. He proposes that every species, be it single cells, plants or animals, are equipped with the fundamental mechanisms that allows them to generate intelligent and logical decisions that they could then utilize in directing their own evolution. Whereas natural selection depends on random mutations followed by selection, Pookottil argues that species are capable of deciding how to logically construct themselves to near perfection over many generations, making modifications to their own genes where necessary.

The principles of emergence, swarm intelligence and signal networks, which he proposes are available to all living organisms, could in fact be the real forces that cleverly and logically drive the evolution of every species on earth. Our brains work by exploiting these very same principles. It is proposed that the complex signal networks that exist between the millions of protein molecules in a cell, or the billions of cells that make up larger organisms, are also capable of generating intelligent solutions, albeit at a slower pace.

A question back to you guys.  Does a mind (or brain) process information objects like a computer?   I would say no.