Informational Environment [split Veridical NDEs are a myth]

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.


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.


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.

There are many partial repetitive apparitional experiences i.e. seeing a full person apparition moving, who disappears, but their feet can still be seen moving around... in that case it was considered that a wardrobe door had been opened by the apparition... blocking the view of a third party who was present, apart from the apparitions feet, which could still be seen moving around below the wardrobe door by the experient. That suggests this repetitive apparition was from the Experience of a third party.

There are loads of different ways anomalous phenomena can manifest within Experience (the result)... but they are all considered anomolous because they connect different Spacetimes... generally someone recalls an Experience that has sufficient separation (space-like or time-like etc) which they cannot explain, if things work the naive way they were taught.

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.

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.

I am with Max on this. Through both study and experience it is fact for me.  Empathy is the everyday normal way we encounter it.  There may be only degrees of difference between understanding someone, reading someone's intentions, empathy as an strong emotion and deep experiences of telepathy.  I think telepathy is very rare.  Non-local perception is not like having the exact experience of another, but the meanings become communicated "as if" it was personal.

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...

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a-basic-model-for-mind-in-a-physical-universe

 At its core is a simple but powerful claim: spacetime is not smooth, but discrete – made of tiny “cells”, which is what quantum mechanics suggests. Each cell can store a quantum imprint of every interaction, like the passage of a particle or even the influence of a force such as electromagnetism or nuclear interactions, that passes through. Each event leaves behind a tiny change in the local quantum state of the spacetime cell.

In other words, the universe does not just evolve. It remembers. 

Max, I find Florian Neukart ideas very interesting.  Maybe you could offer an opinion.

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 distinction between information being ontologically real matters precisely in discussions of the mind and the “hard problem,” because the core issue is whether meaning and consciousness emerge from physical information or require something beyond the physical. Simply saying that “symbols carry meaning” does not resolve that connection, it merely restates it.
In short, dismissing the ontological question while appealing to pragmatic effects is inconsistent. If information is causally real, its ontological status cannot be irrelevant; and if it is not real, then the problem of how meaning arises from the physical remains entirely unaddressed.

The distinction between information being ontologically real matters precisely in discussions of the mind and the “hard problem,” because the core issue is whether meaning and consciousness emerge from physical information or require something beyond the physical. Simply saying that “symbols carry meaning” does not resolve that connection, it merely restates it.
In short, dismissing the ontological question while appealing to pragmatic effects is inconsistent. If information is causally real, its ontological status cannot be irrelevant; and if it is not real, then the problem of how meaning arises from the physical remains entirely unaddressed.

I am not required to untangle your ideas about Metaphysical Ontology vs pragmatic facts that work with "shut-up and calculate".  Communication and computation are methodologically defined and output solutions that are judged on their repeatable causality in real world situations.  An algorithm presents a solution to a query or not.
  
You have yet to respond to any point acknowledging what is said about how these measures function.  Information objects may satisfy a philosophical ontology, but it is not part of the methodological argument you face. My arguments stand or fall on modelling results mapping to useful outcomes.  "Why" is philosophy and how is science.

That said, maybe this will help you (it has convinced me) understand what is received argument from a leading philosopher, head of the department at Oxford.

 AI Overview
Floridi's informational objects are entities defined by their information content and structure, not their material form, embodying a shift from a material to an informational ontology where everything from abstract concepts like numbers to physical objects like a chess pawn is understood as an informational structure...

What an Informational Object Is
Informationally defined: An informational object is defined by its properties and relations, rather than its physical substance. For example, a chess pawn is an informational object defined by its rules and position on the board, not its material composition.

Embodiment of Information: It can be a tangible thing (like a physical computer) or an abstract concept (like a digital number).

Structural Realism: This concept aligns with Informational Structural Realism (ISR), which posits that the world is fundamentally composed of informational objects interacting within a dynamic network.

You may think "meaning arises from the physical", but I sure don't.  In fact "it from bit" makes probable meanings prior to the physical.  "It from bit" is true in terms of communication and computation.  In my view, what was before the big bang was a real "probability wave" decohering and leading to physical interaction beginning.