Mental Evolution and Psi

Ah I suspect the only kind of true causation is mental causation, by which I mean at minimum all causation has to be set into place by a mind such as the Deist God.

This is a huge topic, so I'll just say for now that physical causation is shrouded in mystery (as is the "physical" itself), whereas I at least know of mental causation via experience.

Historic philosophic arguments for properties and causation are like a black hole, sucking reason from data analysis.

I find comfort in the terms disposition and propensity and maintain a stochastic view of how nature behaves.  The problem starts when the "meanings" of physical data are crushed into a "magical" property.  Properties being epistemic, and therefore are just well-formed information objects.  The term of historical discussion is essence, as something essential to matter/energy.  Properties have been elevated as some "magic essence" in the center of the physical world, a world that is always in the tangible here and now.  

Physical phenomena are well documented as to basic rules for outcomes coming from materials and forces. They exist as manifest substance in the state of 100% probability.   Looking at physical properties and extending their physical essence into the past and future conflates with a view of the correlated transformations exhibited by information objects.  Physics happens in the manifest "here and now" only.  Information extends in a wave-like manner to the environment of past and future probabilities. 

If essences are seen as naturally evolving informational objects, then pragmatic, sensible science can operate.  Physical data such as transformations in chemistry are wonderfully complex and seem to explore the freedom of the informational space that limits them.  Chemistry is open to repeatable measurement and the outcomes are rational as they stand.  They feel complete.

Still, when chemistry encodes programming, there is a second level of objects interacting.  And when parsing a Divine influence, then please look to other generative levels being in play and existing outside the scope of physics and information science.

Ian J. Thompson
Livermore Laboratory
 Follow
Abstract
An ontological extension of dispositional essentialism is proposed, whereby what is necessary and sufficient for the dispositional causation of events is interpreted realistically, and postulated to exist. This ‘generative realism’ leads to a general concept of ‘substance’ as constituted by its more fundamental powers or propensities appearing in the form of some structure or field.

Ian J. Thompson
Livermore Laboratory
 Follow
Abstract
The analysis of dispositions is used to consider cases where the effect of one disposition operating is the existence of another disposition. This may arise from rearrangements within aggregated structures of dispositional parts, or, it is argued, also as stages of derivative dispositions within a set of multiple generative levels. Inspection of examples in both classical and quantum physics suggests a general principle of `Conditional Forward Causation': that dispositions act 'forwards' in a way conditional on certain circumstances or occasions already existing at the `later' levels.

Physical phenomena are well documented as to basic rules for outcomes coming from materials and forces. They exist as manifest substance in the state of 100% probability.   Looking at physical properties and extending their physical essence into the past and future conflates with a view of the correlated transformations exhibited by information objects.  Physics happens in the manifest "here and now" only.  Information extends in a wave-like manner to the environment of past and future probabilities.

I think your use of the word phenomena - perhaps intentionally - "encodes" physical objects as enduring experiences (so Mind) whose behavior can be extrapolated into the future via maths (so Mind again).

We don't even know why physical phenomena endure, or why this endurance is stochastic and conditional on factors like the freezing temperature of water. And why don't such conditionals - usually grouped together as the "Laws of Nature" - remain constant.

Feynman himself noted that it's hard to give a definition of "forces" that doesn't end up being circular.

I think we might be in agreement here, that the "physical" is a grouping of convenience not a known quantity?

Thanks for the response.

I see Psi - not as mystery - but as real interaction that fits a natural pattern.  Mental activity like foresight and creatively picturing a desired future are fundamental mental processes.  Your argument makes sense as long as the fundamaterialist assertion that "brains" do the ALL the processing is true.  It is not.  Single cell organisms do process information and have collective mind.  The measurements are clear.

To go from the state of order of a physical system (where forces and materials count) - to a biological one (where desires and possible intended targets count) - means that exacting operations of mind function in a naturally logical way.  

Science can parse mind as information processing and outcomes.  Mind creates the organization of biological materials.  Not only in terms of changes to the brain, but by coding the entire phenomena of an organism.  Before an organism goes for food - there has to be an information object, as an affordance, created by mind. 

Mental evolution would then have to take place in the informational environment first.  Mind began organizing around the probability for interaction within the environment.  Detection of food (energy) had to exist before an organized system for acquiring evolved.

Mind, materials, energy and potential future meaning all squeezed out of the big bang.  If it were not possible for mind to arrange objective information - right from the start - it could never have evolved.  (my take on the Anthropic Principle)  


  
For a computer program to run it needs a start/go command.  Here in this command is fundamental foresight.  If you follow H. Stapp and J. Von Neumann this is Process 1 - a selection with a "designed" information objective.  Eat, engage reproduction, find shelter, avoid danger/predators and address excretion are all instincts that must be informationally functional for a bacteria to thrive.  Each an information objective, where a command is executed that is logically relational to an expected outcome.

I just don't see how bacteria or any other non-human living organisms that we know of either collectively or individually have the cognitive and creative resources to invent biological engineering solutions to problems. If this were so, they would be able to carry out all the steps needed in the design process. These steps include: analysis, insight into what is the cause of an engineering problem, design creativity in coming up with a solution (including the use of preexisting mechanisms as part of the new design), foresight into possible future problems with the candidate design, and modification of the initial solution to avoid these problems. 

This process including all these steps and more applies to the many complex and intricate biological systems or subsystems we know came about in evolution in very much less time than any Darwinistic process could possibly require.  In our human experience this always requires a high degree of conscious intelligence. 

I might point out that one data point would be Lenski's bacterial evolution experiments, which over very many generations  with a large population found no such creativity and ingenuity in solving critical problems that he inserted into the bacterial environment. The best the bacteria could do was (out of a lot of other random mutations) find a few that would break certain genetic sequences (reducing genetic information) and consequently gaining ability to metabolize citrate to survive. This just utilized an already existing complex metabolic pathway, at the inevitable cost of losing a lot of genetic information (as predicted by Michael Behe).

I think your use of the word phenomena - perhaps intentionally - "encodes" physical objects as enduring experiences (so Mind) whose behavior can be extrapolated into the future via maths (so Mind again).

I think we might be in agreement here, that the "physical" is a grouping of convenience not a known quantity?

Physicality, as an observable domain, has the character of being open to reductive understanding via math.  I think the concept of "physical property" is semantically unclear and much of what is credited to physical properties are really informational outcome patterns.  Physics and material science have progressed immensely on reductive findings.  So should informational science, in its own domain.

The kick in the ass to Physicalism is that information science is seen in this IR model to be just as reductive via logic and math.  In this framework there is little or no change to formal reductive analysis in physics, but that there is increased methodological value in discovering how "It from Bit" works in a complementary fashion to mechanically patterned outcomes.  The probability of being manifest (physical) comes from prior information states and contributes to future states of information activity.  An idea/plan can never materialize, but it is able to exert great influence in what does occur.  Its objective information structure has influence in the informational environment, without being actually true physically.

This argues against Idealism.  The encoding of a phenomenon is both found in physical object's evolution, but is primary in the spread within the information environment.  New information occurs independent of past physical events thru interference patterns structuring new possibilities.  The statement: "An idea whose time has come" would reflect this.

I just don't see how bacteria or any other non-human living organisms that we know of either collectively or individually have the cognitive and creative resources to invent biological engineering solutions to problems. 

This just utilized an already existing complex metabolic pathway, at the inevitable cost of losing a lot of genetic information (as predicted by Michael Behe).

My view would disagree with Mike on this.  Surely genetic information could be lost, physically and not return to a species.  But as said above, informational patterns are not exclusively physical, they exist probabilistically in the informational environment.

Look at parallel evolution, which in my limited understanding occurs often in bacteria.  Please forget the bs from neoDarwinism that random mutations must add-up.  Nature cheats!!!!!  There is over-whelming evidence that the chemistry code is non-random and that once there is a possible beneficial mutation, the coding site becomes active and many changes occurs, far past random chance.  My thesis is that information objects are contributing in the search for an answer to a biological problem.  I think I have cited Lynn Caporale before.  Here is a more modern take on fitness being achieved beyond randomness.

 These experiments are carried out by growing replicate populations of a single clone in one or more environments and then tracking the fate of newly arisen mutations. Mutations with no fitness effects can spread through these populations by stochastic processes at a slow rate, but mutations with positive fitness effects can spread rapidly. Strong evidence for parallel evolution in these experiments comes from the observation of repeated evolution of mutations in the same gene or even affecting the same amino acid sites. 

 If further studies continue to support the observation that parallel evolution has occurred more often than expected by chance, then we will require explicit tests of the causes of parallel evolution. I have discussed several properties of gene structure and genetic network structure that can influence the probability that different gene regions and certain genes within networks will contribute to parallel evolution. Both effector genes and genes that regulate developmental processes participate in parallel and collateral evolution (TABLE 1). At least in some circumstances, evolutionary predictability results from mutations that minimize pleiotropic effects while simultaneously maximizing the phenotypic change.

https://www.janelia.org/sites/default/fi..._.NRG_.pdf

Regulation of chemical processes seems to be the key, as that is where feedback information can be introduced.

The idea that there is detection of real-world probabilities by the simplest life forms drive my assertions.  You don't need the cognitive abilities of a human to make simple selections if you are instinctively "feeling" the future.

 "…”fully understanding the information content of genomes will involve expanding our imagination with respect to both what types of information may be there and how information might be represented.” (Overview of The Implicit Genome Oxford University Press 2006)............................................................................................. “… much like other phenotypic variations that affect the survival of the descendants, intrinsic variations in the probability, type, and location of genetic change can feel the pressure of natural selection.” (Natural Selection and the emergence of a mutation phenotype: An Update of the Evolutionary Synthesis Considering Mechanisms that Affect Genome Variation Annu. Rev Microbiol 2003 57: 467–85) " -Lynn Caporale

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/p...a-caporale

Physicality, as an observable domain, has the character of being open to reductive understanding via math.  I think the concept of "physical property" is semantically unclear and much of what is credited to physical properties are really informational outcome patterns.  Physics and material science have progressed immensely on reductive findings.  So should informational science, in its own domain.

The kick in the ass to Physicalism is that information science is seen in this IR model to be just as reductive via logic and math.  In this framework there is little or no change to formal reductive analysis in physics, but that there is increased methodological value in discovering how "It from Bit" works in a complementary fashion to mechanically patterned outcomes.  The probability of being manifest (physical) comes from prior information states and contributes to future states of information activity.  An idea/plan can never materialize, but it is able to exert great influence in what does occur.  Its objective information structure has influence in the informational environment, without being actually true physically.

This argues against Idealism.  The encoding of a phenomenon is both found in physical object's evolution, but is primary in the spread within the information environment.  New information occurs independent of past physical events thru interference patterns structuring new possibilities.  The statement: "An idea whose time has come" would reflect this.

The mentality of causation doesn't require Idealism - for example all theists would arguably believe in it whether or not they're Idealists.

But this whole idea of Information seems to somewhere between physical structures and mental activity. I know I always ask what is Information but that's because this seems so slippery to me. What is the "objective information structure" of me feeling hungry or sleepy?

The mentality of causation doesn't require Idealism - for example all theists would arguably believe in it whether or not they're Idealists.

But this whole idea of Information seems to somewhere between physical structures and mental activity. I know I always ask what is Information but that's because this seems so slippery to me. What is the "objective information structure" of me feeling hungry or sleepy?

Going down deep (at least for me) - if the model of separate environments as multiple generative levels is to be taken seriously (and I have no serious analytic skill) both the rigorous reduction of physical events to root causes and likewise, reduction of informational events to root causes, are both taken in the context of a heuristic.  That means they generalize data patterns to make a methodology functional.  I take at face value the raw data and the defined methods for physics and materials science as a rational system.  One that is related to logical and math structures by evidence.  

The big advantage for materials science is that analyzation results are empirical and objective.  Test equipment results are standardized and not subjective.  But, the limits to the test results are still between the actual reality and observer understanding.  Hence, the heuristic acknowledgement.  The constraints on data gathering, color the outcome data due to the need to have physical means of testing.  It may be different for information science.

If testing for chemicals present in a substance, a test sample limits the quantity and shape of the substance tested.  Further, the substance is typically broken down by heat or dissolution.  A plasma burn of the sample, in a vacuum, can control many variables in testing metals, but the actual integrity of the sample is in an extreme state, as its spectral lines are detected.  If there is some organic material - it is vaporized beyond test results, except for residual carbon.
 
A chemical breakdown report from correlating light emission results to pretested standards, has outcomes, which will be seen as definitive.  They are open to retest when presenting as an outlier.  The heuristic methods themselves will be documented, as well as the equipment sensitivity and margin of error. So will the standard have a pedigree.  The fact that the test is measuring a manifest state (P=1) gives the results solid ground. 

What is not modern thinking is to infer an "essence" to the metal that "makes" the properties.  No magic - just outcomes.  This is to say there should be a rejection of of ontological meanings of a natural substances, beyond specific reductively understood patterns of reactivity.  Its meanings are the outcomes of structure and energy states in relation to real world affordances. 

On the other hand - measuring intent, belief, organization, capability, effectiveness, are all based on probability outcomes.  In the history of science - empirical results are more easy to rely on.  However, repeatable outcomes in stochastic terms has evolved to a similar status, due to Shannon's (and others) approach to information and Von Neuman's (and others) quantum information outlook.

Two points I would like to make:  

• Assertions made as to informational objects should be seen in the context of heuristic methodology.  No metaphysics needed.
  
• I am just a guy and will own the fact that I do personally think there are 4 ontological elements that are interacting. 
  

1. The nexus of particles that subsume materiality and structure mass in an ever-present now.
   
2. The transforms of energy that define physical activity and can be organized into productive systems.
   
3. The transforms of meanings detected and organized by minds in the universe, so that affordances can be realized.
   
4. The nexus of information bits that can be structured into information objects.
   

Hunger (an experience of meaning) is a detection of an inner state from signaling from the stomach, where there may be a low digestive mass available.  Food digestion is the energy needed to live and it underlies instincts to eat.  Of course, most people notice "how hungry" when getting signals of an affordance in their environment - like the smell of grilled meats or baked goods.

The idea that there is detection of real-world probabilities by the simplest life forms drive my assertions.  You don't need the cognitive abilities of a human to make simple selections if you are instinctively "feeling" the future.



https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/p...a-caporale

In my view the origin of design especially intricate irreducibly complex design inherently requires conscious intelligence of a high order. Like I said, the required steps include analysis, insight into what is the cause of an engineering problem, design creativity in coming up with a solution (including the use of preexisting mechanisms as part of the new design), foresight into possible future problems with the candidate design, and modification of the initial solution to avoid these problems. There is no way of getting around this requirement. Therefore suggesting it is instinctual in primitive living organisms to foster beneficial mutations that can come up with such a design is just passing the design buck upstream somewhere, where there inevitably has to be some sort of a conscious analytical intelligence. We can't get rid of the requirement by kicking the can down the road, so to speak.

A relatively simple example of irreducible complexity in the design process: a mechanism in a design requires both structure A and structure B. A is useless (or even harmful) without B and vice versa. The Darwinian mechanism won't work in the first place because the chance of getting both in one mutant is vanishingly small. And even then the chance is very very much smaller of getting everything in the design exactly right so that both structures plus the sending and receiving and coding/decoding of signals interface with the overall system, and the mechanical details of the interface between them, enable the complete system to work correctly.  So design insight is absolutely required to foresee this to its full extent and figure out what changes are required to structures A and B to make them compatible with each other and also with the rest of the overall design.

To suggest this problem (and very many much more complicated ones) are solved simply by some sort of intuitional faculty in organisms is to invoke something like magic - to somehow make a watch but without a watchmaker. I think that is untenable. I don't think ascribing this to some sort of psychic or paranormal ability on the part of the organisms works either. It again would be ascribing a large amount of complex specified information (that we know from experience always comes from conscious intelligence) to a non-cognitive source - essentially something from nothing.