Informational Environment [split Veridical NDEs are a myth]

@ sbu asks about an information dimension

Dimensions are a physical concept that enable a model for measurement in spaces.  An environment is a larger idea.  I would simply cite that there are three dimensions to an informational environment.  Interior information to an agent, exterior information to an agent and Complexity in each.

Information has the same relationships to objects as does physical objects, but within the limits of an informational environment.  Their relations are measurable structures and their actions that interact with structure, both physical and informational.  The analogy would be for Material Science describing structure -> to Communication Theory describing informational structures, such as code, logical relations and complexity.  Entanglement appears as an information structure. 

Physics has its analog in those academic subjects such as psychological motivation, applied logic, bringing the past and future into present experience and of course all communication.  Communication moves the information object from a source to a receiver.  There are some scholars who use the term Active Information.  The hypothesis here is that mind initiates these changes to the informational environment.  The tacit premise is that mind, in reality, is information processing.

This said - hypothetically NDE's are just far-reaching mental perception involving those capabilities of our understanding.

 Active information, a concept introduced by David Bohm, is a fundamental aspect of reality that guides the form and behavior of systems without imparting significant energy. Similar to how the signal in a radio wave controls a boat's movement without providing the boat's energy, active information provides the "form" or "meaning" that directs the energy and activity of a system, such as a particle or a living organism. Bohm proposed it as a potential bridge between the physical and mental aspects of reality, suggesting information is not just a mental construct but an active component of the universe itself.

Using the analogy above, the coded information associated with the signal guiding the boat is an information object.  Objects being real world configurations whether physical or informational.

Intuition, gut feelings and creative thought may just be Psi that has been normalized.

@ sbu asks about an information dimension

Dimensions are a physical concept that enable a model for measurement in spaces.  An environment is a larger idea.  I would simply cite that there are three dimensions to an informational environment.  Interior information to an agent, exterior information to an agent and Complexity in each.

Information has the same relationships to objects as does physical objects, but within the limits of an informational environment.  Their relations are measurable structures and their actions that interact with structure, both physical and informational.  The analogy would be for Material Science describing structure -> to Communication Theory describing informational structures, such as code, logical relations and complexity.  Entanglement appears as an information structure. 

Physics has its analog in those academic subjects such as psychological motivation, applied logic, bringing the past and future into present experience and of course all communication.  Communication moves the information object from a source to a receiver.  There are some scholars who use the term Active Information.  The hypothesis here is that mind initiates these changes to the informational environment.  The tacit premise is that mind, in reality, is information processing.

This said - hypothetically NDE's are just far-reaching mental perception involving those capabilities of our understanding.


Using the analogy above, the coded information associated with the signal guiding the boat is an information object.  Objects being real world configurations whether physical or informational.

Intuition, gut feelings and creative thought may just be Psi that has been normalized.

Physical dimensions are measurable, orthogonal axes. What makes interior/exterior/complexity "dimensions"? They seem more like categories or types. Can you move along them? Measure distances?

It sounds very much like the naive dualist concept of a spiritual dimension(one or more?) just rebranded. If informational entities are real, how do they interact with the physical?

Physical dimensions are measurable, orthogonal axes. What makes interior/exterior/complexity "dimensions"? They seem more like categories or types. Can you move along them? Measure distances?

You are conflating the definition of "dimension" used in physics with the metaphorical, abstract definition used in everyday speech.

You cannot measure immeasurable metaphorical dimensions like the mind, qualia or such.

It sounds very much like the naive dualist concept of a spiritual dimension(one or more?) just rebranded. If informational entities are real, how do they interact with the physical?

You are presuming, without evidence, that only physical things can interact with physical things.

Meanwhile, qualitatively non-physical minds interact with physical things all of the time ~ albeit through the physical form the mind transparently possesses. We do not need a "mechanism" in any physical sense.

@ sbu asks about an information dimension

Dimensions are a physical concept that enable a model for measurement in spaces.  An environment is a larger idea.  I would simply cite that there are three dimensions to an informational environment.  Interior information to an agent, exterior information to an agent and Complexity in each.

Information has the same relationships to objects as does physical objects, but within the limits of an informational environment.  Their relations are measurable structures and their actions that interact with structure, both physical and informational.  The analogy would be for Material Science describing structure -> to Communication Theory describing informational structures, such as code, logical relations and complexity.  Entanglement appears as an information structure. 

Physics has its analog in those academic subjects such as psychological motivation, applied logic, bringing the past and future into present experience and of course all communication.  Communication moves the information object from a source to a receiver.  There are some scholars who use the term Active Information.  The hypothesis here is that mind initiates these changes to the informational environment.  The tacit premise is that mind, in reality, is information processing.

This said - hypothetically NDE's are just far-reaching mental perception involving those capabilities of our understanding.


Using the analogy above, the coded information associated with the signal guiding the boat is an information object.  Objects being real world configurations whether physical or informational.

Intuition, gut feelings and creative thought may just be Psi that has been normalized.

As the brains own internally generated EM field collapses, it becomes more influenced by externally generated EM fields intersecting it. Copies/replicas can connect the brain to different Spacetimes (with the right sort of isolation)...

https://x.com/maxxbone/status/1940132050742427903

As the brains own internally generated EM field collapses, it becomes more influenced by externally generated EM fields intersecting it. Copies/replicas can connect the brain to different Spacetimes (with the right sort of isolation)...

https://x.com/maxxbone/status/1940132050742427903

This doesn't explain why we can sense anomalous phenomena from our own perspectives ~ we aren't having someone else's experience, but our own, filtered through our senses ~ whatever those senses are in the cases of various types of anomalous phenomena.

It's not the brain or physical senses that are the source or sensors ~ it is the mind itself.

Physical dimensions are measurable, orthogonal axes. What makes interior/exterior/complexity "dimensions"? They seem more like categories or types. Can you move along them? Measure distances?

It sounds very much like the naïve dualist concept of a spiritual dimension(one or more?) just rebranded. If informational entities are real, how do they interact with the physical?

First, thank you for the logical questions.  Of course, distance in an informational environment is not measured in feet.  It is measurable in computational terms.  One category - complexity is well known.  The other two, if you please, I need to defend.

 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In algorithmic information theory (a subfield of computer science and mathematics), the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program (in a predetermined programming language) that produces the object as output. It is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object, and is also known as algorithmic complexity, Solomonoff–Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, program-size complexity, descriptive complexity, or algorithmic entropy. It is named after Andrey Kolmogorov, who first published on the subject in 1963[1][2] and is a generalization of classical information theory.

  You may resist the idea of an information object, but I can support it easily.

An agent, particularly a biological organism, has interior information processing that leads to behavior (output).  Charles Darwin and his protégé George Romanes claimed their theory of evolution incorporated mental evolution.  The discovery of DNA/RNA/Ribosomes systems are measurable as to how they facilitate information processing.  Thinking as an agent is likewise measurable, not as to electrical signals but as useful behavior.

Likewise, information in an environment is measured in terms of ecology.  Are there objects that organisms need within its detection range?  Is there competition to control them?  Can the organism satisfy instincts and desires?  Are their possible clues to danger?  The mapping of human preferences related to changing trends is big business.

 AI Overview Ecological psychology and Cognitive theory - Instructional

Ecological psychology is a field that studies the interconnectedness of perception, action, and the environment, emphasizing how organisms perceive and interact with their surroundings to support their behavior. Key concepts include affordances, the opportunities an environment provides for an organism, and direct perception, the idea that organisms directly perceive meaningful aspects of their environment without complex cognitive processing.

You ask if the physical environment is effected by information processing?  I simply point out that information objects have changed our lives in the last 50 years?  When information objects such as plan are controlling and regulating action useful outcomes are created.  (see prior reference to "active information.)  I do have process answers, but they are not just a paragraph in a post.

An agent, particularly a biological organism, has interior information processing that leads to behavior (output).  Charles Darwin and his protégé George Romanes claimed their theory of evolution incorporated mental evolution.  The discovery of DNA/RNA/Ribosomes systems are measurable as to how they facilitate information processing.  Thinking as an agent is likewise measurable, not as to electrical signals but as useful behavior.

Likewise, information in an environment is measured in terms of ecology.  Are there objects that organisms need within its detection range?  Is there competition to control them?  Can the organism satisfy instincts and desires?  Are their possible clues to danger?  The mapping of human preferences related to changing trends is big business.


You ask if the physical environment is effected by information processing?  I simply point out that information objects have changed our lives in the last 50 years?  When information objects such as plan are controlling and regulating action useful outcomes are created.  (see prior reference to "active information.)  I do have process answers, but they are not just a paragraph in a post.

So far you haven’t really written anything to support that informational “objects” are (ontological) real. Based on what you write above information as bits&bytes fully mediated and processed in the physical environment fits the observations. I don’t see any link to the hard problem of consciousness.

This doesn't explain why we can sense anomalous phenomena from our own perspectives ~ we aren't having someone else's experience, but our own, filtered through our senses ~ whatever those senses are in the cases of various types of anomalous phenomena.

It's not the brain or physical senses that are the source or sensors ~ it is the mind itself.

Yes, everything is within Experience (a result)... but that doesn't mean some parts of our our Experience should be disregarded as somehow inferior... the Experience of the "brain or physical sensors" are still constructed from the same 'thing' as all the rest of Experience... and can be used to understand it.

Individuals are a perspective built upon what is shared - that which is hidden behind the result (Experience). As one example, there seems no way to explain something like... Harry Martindales Roman Ghosts experience, along with other common anomalous phenomena, without accepting he accessed others Experience... he wasn't there... and that - together with all other anomalous phenomena - shows that Experience really is - literally - shared.

Peningtons mathematical wormholes literally connect different Spacetimes, they are a shadow of the enormous complexity that lies behind Experience, which appears emergent from a shared mathematical structure... which knows about itself...

Yes, everything is within Experience (a result)... but that doesn't mean some parts of our our Experience should be disregarded as somehow inferior... the Experience of the "brain or physical sensors" are still constructed from the same 'thing' as all the rest of Experience... and can be used to understand it.

I never said or implied that any part of our experience is "inferior". The brain is something within experience ~ but we never experience being the brain.

Individuals are a perspective built upon what is shared - that which is hidden behind the result (Experience). As one example, there seems no way to explain something like... Harry Martindales Roman Ghosts experience, along with other common anomalous phenomena, without accepting he accessed others Experience... he wasn't there... and that - together with all other anomalous phenomena - shows that Experience really is - literally - shared.

That isn't evidence that we are accessing the experiences of others ~ that would be telepathy, where we gain insight into the first-person experiences of others. Perceiving non-physical phenomena from the outside isn't accessing the "experiences" of others ~ it is a psychic perceiving of energies.

Harry Martindales Roman ghosts experience? It's a form of psychometry, I would have to guess at, possibly.

Peningtons mathematical wormholes literally connect different Spacetimes, they are a shadow of the enormous complexity that lies behind Experience, which appears emergent from a shared mathematical structure... which knows about itself...

How do you know this...? Mathematical structures are not self-aware ~ nor is it certain that they provide structure. Mathematics is an means of abstractly modelling physical phenomena.

So far you haven’t really written anything to support that informational “objects” are (ontological) real. Based on what you write above information as bits&bytes fully mediated and processed in the physical environment fits the observations. I don’t see any link to the hard problem of consciousness.

Whether information is ontologically real is not germane to the argument you have been reading, but which you do not address in your responses.  Information objects are pragmatically effective in the real world.  You have made a logical challenge by confining information as Shannon (communication theory) units of measure.  However, the claim is that bits and bits have direct relations with meaningful arrangements.  There is little to no subjective contextual considerations in calculating movement and materials.  Yet, pragmatically, there is context in the study of meaning.  The electrons of a signal have nothing to do with with the meaningful information they carry.

How this connection is resolved in science is the question?  Symbols "carry" meaning through representation by symbol or by binary code.  How does electronic hardware even address the problem?  Again, pragmatic observation presents language and communication as representational in its functioning.  It is a foundational building block for mind and any discussion of Chambers "hard problem".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/

  The notion of a “mental representation” is, arguably, in the first instance a theoretical construct of cognitive science. As such, it is a basic concept of the Computational Theory of Mind, according to which cognitive states and processes are constituted by the occurrence, transformation and storage (in the mind/brain) of information-bearing structures (representations) of one kind or another.

However, on the assumption that a representation is an object with semantic properties (content, reference, truth-conditions, truth-value, etc.), a mental representation may be more broadly construed as a mental object with semantic properties.