Informational Environment [split Veridical NDEs are a myth]

That makes less sense than it being from the perspective of the one observing the apparition...?

I can't hazzard a guess at what you thought I had said...

This also makes less sense than it just being different layers of the same reality ~ it's not recalling an experience, but rather sensing different layers of reality to different degrees. An accessing of the information from these layers through mental senses.

For example ~ the spirits I work with. I am not recalling their experience nor I am connecting with a different spacetime. I am communicating with them directly through whatever telepathic and energetic senses I seem to have. I can hear them telepathically ~ see them with varying amounts of clarity and intensity, with their appearance overlaying on top of my normal visual senses. I can feel the outline of their forms if I focus ~ it's not touch, but some... energetic equivalent.

You can substitute 'having' for 'recalling' an Experience, it makes no difference.

And yet that is not how I directly experience the entities that I do ~ yes, I can also feel their emotions, thoughts and memories, but those are secondary to the telepathy, visual appearances and sensing of them. I am rather aware that they are distinct from me, as their energies have a different feel to them.

You're defining 'telepathy' in some way I don't understand... by splitting your individual Experience of third party/ies emotions, thoughts and memories, as somehow different ("secondary") from whatever you mean by 'telepathy', visual appearance and some other split of sensing - which doesn't make much sense to me.

I can't hazzard a guess at what you thought I had said...

Well, your paragraph was a little vague in what was being referred to, I think.

What were you trying to say?

You can substitute 'having' for 'recalling' an Experience, it makes no difference.

They're very different things ~ one being the sensing of something distinct from oneself, but not being aware of their inner experiences, and the other being the sensing of another's memories or experiences, in a telepathic sense.

Our definitions don't appear to really line up, I suspect.

You're defining 'telepathy' in some way I don't understand... by splitting your individual Experience of third party/ies emotions, thoughts and memories, as somehow different ("secondary") from whatever you mean by 'telepathy', visual appearance and some other split of sensing - which doesn't make much sense to me.

Telepathy is the direct communication between beings on a psychic / mental / emotional level. Whereas the visual appearance of them is my perceiving of their forms by my own senses, not coming from their inner experiences.

They are distinct senses that you are conflating, rather. I can differentiate them clearly because I have spent years having such experiences. So I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of how I sense said entities, and in what ways.

Yet, the literature does have it both way.  Sorry to confuse you by clarifying that the ontology is not the basis of the argument, but I still attempted to directly answer your point.  After a long period of Metaphysical Materialism - many want to turn the tables making information science more important than physics.  

As said in prior posts, I see Methodological Materialism as well-formed and fully complimentary to Methodological Informationalsim.  I posit that there are two separate environments working separately (asymptotically), with decoherence bringing the outcomes of the informational environment into embodiment within corresponding physical conditions.  Unlike Wheeler, I am fine with matter/energy just as primary as bits/meanings.  Physical reality is the base and containment of the wave function.  Probabilistic information can still be real in the past, before decoherence, and in the future.  Our minds do effect the future as biological choices change probabilities.

Method and background belief about realty are in no way exclusive as you try to intimate.  The practical point is that information, either as willed outcomes or just random physical causes, changes fixed outcomes in space/time.  If you can grasp the subject, I can go further as to how this is science.  But maybe you should address my points, as I have yours.

The AI response was to the query: it from bit pragmatic or metaphysical

I think you’re reading both Bohr and Wheeler the wrong way. Neither of them thought information was some extra “layer” of reality sitting behind the physical world. Bohr argued that physics only tells us what we can observe and describe, not what reality is in itself. Wheeler took that same idea and gave it a modern spin, his “it from bit”, wasn’t claiming the universe is made of information, only that what we call “reality” comes into focus through acts of measurement.
In that sense, Bohr and Wheeler were in broad agreement, both were pushing back against exactly the kind of informational metaphysics you’re describing, not supporting it.

I think it would be beneficial for the debate if you stop making quotes and references to other sources and just explain exactly what argument you want to discuss - that part not being clear to me yet.

I think you’re reading both Bohr and Wheeler the wrong way. Neither of them thought information was some extra “layer” of reality sitting behind the physical world. Bohr argued that physics only tells us what we can observe and describe, not what reality is in itself. Wheeler took that same idea and gave it a modern spin, his “it from bit”, wasn’t claiming the universe is made of information, only that what we call “reality” comes into focus through acts of measurement.
In that sense, Bohr and Wheeler were in broad agreement, both were pushing back against exactly the kind of informational metaphysics you’re describing, not supporting it.

I think it would be beneficial for the debate if you stop making quotes and references to other sources and just explain exactly what argument you want to discuss - that part not being clear to me yet.

Sorry to make you uncomfortable with excerpts targeting specifics points arguing for a discrete informational environment.  You misunderstand the ideas when you say "behind the physical".  The scope of these interactions exist prior to being physically manifest and afterwards effecting future possibilities.   I have no problem calling the - "here and now" - information "physical information".  But I see the idea that there is only physical information and that it magically extends to the past and future -- an archaic point of view.

Again, I have no problem with Born and his emphasis on observe and describe as the science task.  This makes the data clear and standing on its own.  His received ideas were developed before C. Shannon, J. Von Neumann and N. Schneider presented information science maths.

Wheeler's "it from bit" is a direct response to 3 facts that came from the data.  Entanglement, uncertainty and context in quantum results.  Please note that these three are informational subjects and are measured outside physics and SI units.  In my argument, Wheeler's meme sets-up the fact that before manifestation in time/space there are real-world probabilities.  These are what is measured. 

Is there any metaphysics in these points?

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that I am arguing for a discrete informational environment.  Maybe you will consider that it is supported by the data and if you disagree you will attack the science I state.  The next point would be that we experience mind in that environment and not with the 5 bio-detection senses.  Understanding and will are the key processes, IMHO.  Neither is defined by materials or energy.  The ability of organism to use these capabilities are information processing and not magical.

Sorry to make you uncomfortable with excerpts targeting specifics points arguing for a discrete informational environment.  You misunderstand the ideas when you say "behind the physical".  The scope of these interactions exist prior to being physically manifest and afterwards effecting future possibilities.   I have no problem calling the - "here and now" - information "physical information".  But I see the idea that there is only physical information and that it magically extends to the past and future -- an archaic point of view.

Again, I have no problem with Born and his emphasis on observe and describe as the science task.  This makes the data clear and standing on its own.  His received ideas were developed before C. Shannon, J. Von Neumann and N. Schneider presented information science maths.

Wheeler's "it from bit" is a direct response to 3 facts that came from the data.  Entanglement, uncertainty and context in quantum results.  Please note that these three are informational subjects and are measured outside physics and SI units.  In my argument, Wheeler's meme sets-up the fact that before manifestation in time/space there are real-world probabilities.  These are what is measured. 

Is there any metaphysics in these points?

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that I am arguing for a discrete informational environment.  Maybe you will consider that it is supported by the data and if you disagree you will attack the science I state.  The next point would be that we experience mind in that environment and not with the 5 bio-detection senses.  Understanding and will are the key processes, IMHO.  Neither is defined by materials or energy.  The ability of organism to use these capabilities are information processing and not magical.

I give up. Now you’re mentioning Born - before it was Bohr. Those are two completely different people.
I also disagree that there’s any actual science in what you’re proposing. The only clear “information” I’ve been able to extract from your posts is that there’s a “hard problem” connecting the physical, objective world to subjective experience. But yes, everyone already understands that. You haven’t moved the discussion forward, just restated the obvious in increasingly tangled terms.

I give up. Now you’re mentioning Born - before it was Bohr. Those are two completely different people.
I also disagree that there’s any actual science in what you’re proposing. The only clear “information” I’ve been able to extract from your posts is that there’s a “hard problem” connecting the physical, objective world to subjective experience. But yes, everyone already understands that. You haven’t moved the discussion forward, just restated the obvious in increasingly tangled terms.

You said that I misunderstood Bohr, and I wrongly responded about Born, whose position was more germane to the topic of "shut up and calculate".  My comment still holds that either gentleman's physics was before the maths of communication theory.  A typo is what you are using as a gotcha?  Not strong.

If the maths and functional principles of information theory, logic and thermodynamics are not science, then all the advances in information processing, including quantum information processing are not science?  Yikes.  15 years ago I faced the critique that quantum processing using entanglement was just an hypothesis and not real and it made me flaky.  I am surely vindicated in the present. 

A recap as a logic ladder. 
Are information and logical theories successfully parsing reality?  Yes or No. 
If information is real, then does it stand as the core of what the mind is achieving?  Yes or No
If mind is changing real world probabilities, is it the basis for the start of life and mental evolution.  Yes or No
If detecting and changing real world probabilities is happening in a separate environment, then life can start as immaterial mind and bring life forward into manifest physical existence with a full code.  Yes or No

Can't wait for your deeply considered response and the science experts who back the claims.  ( Expect more nits and pickings about me instead.)  I engaged you expecting solid ideas, as you can express yourself well.

Telepathy is the direct communication between beings on a psychic / mental / emotional level. Whereas the visual appearance of them is my perceiving of their forms by my own senses, not coming from their inner experiences.

They are distinct senses that you are conflating, rather. I can differentiate them clearly because I have spent years having such experiences. So I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of how I sense said entities, and in what ways.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-what-is-really-known-about-consciousness-sheldrake-vernon-dialogue-96

Just read about the term "extra ocular vision" in the above feature.  Maybe it can bring these accounts under an umbrella?