Mind in action

I don't follow this.  May be semantics, but "meaning" is inexorably tied to "consciousness".  Without the latter, there is no former.  So asserting that nature (presuming you mean the physical universe) is independently full of meaning just doesn't square for me.

What would "meaning" be defined as if we weren't here (being anthropomorphic here)?

Yes, it is very easy to fall into a circular regress.

David

Yes, it is very easy to fall into a circular regress.

David

There is a cluster of these:

What is the meaning of meaning?  How do you understand understanding?  Do we really know what we think we know?

The best viewpoint to jump over this - is the informational view.  Information is a 3 STEP causal model.  Rather than see a 2 step - cause -> effect model, information is  modeled as a source - a channel - and a receiver.  Seeing 3 step processes as if a 2 step process causes paradoxes, like the ones above.  The best example is that where the eye transmits information to the brain is the blind spot where the channel apparatus connects.

Think about this in the context of physics history.  Humanity in the majority, of history believed that organic stuff is a different substance than inanimate nature.  Today -- hopefully  -- this is a ridiculous view.  Every molecule is just that, there is no special substance.  We are transformers of materials and chemicals factories releasing energy.  There is no human chemical element.  Its all accounted for in and out analysis.

Take that scenario, and apply it to the realization of transformation of information as a science.  To think we make our own personal stuff that is informational is just as out of date.  We live in a sea of informational and we just transform it into useful experiences.

The physical environment is rich with elements that our 5 senses are attuned to receive.  Each sense is a system of detectors and channels that deliver messages.  The environmental elements are transmitted and become mutual information (the elements are copied).  These elements can be known (detected in consciousness) or be in the subconscious and the information transformed to mutual information during retrospection/remembering.  

The elements in the environment are there to be seen or smelled -- objectively.  physical information
The elements in the environment are there to be restructured into an affordance.  functional information 
The elements in the environment get detected.  mutual information
The elements in the environment with meaning for an agent can be understood as affordances, with mutual information that is functional.
etc.........................

There is a cluster of these:

What is the meaning of meaning?  How do you understand understanding?  Do we really know what we think we know?

The best viewpoint to jump over this - is the informational view.  Information is a 3 STEP causal model.  Rather than see a 2 step - cause -> effect model, information is  modeled as a source - a channel - and a receiver.  Seeing 3 step processes as if a 2 step process causes paradoxes, like the ones above.  The best example is that where the eye transmits information to the brain is the blind spot where the channel apparatus connects.

Think about this in the context of physics history.  Humanity in the majority, of history believed that organic stuff is a different substance than inanimate nature.  Today -- hopefully  -- this is a ridiculous view.  Every molecule is just that, there is no special substance.  We are transformers of materials and chemicals factories releasing energy.  There is no human chemical element.  Its all accounted for in and out analysis.

Take that scenario, and apply it to the realization of transformation of information as a science.  To think we make our own personal stuff that is informational is just as out of date.  We live in a sea of informational and we just transform it into useful experiences.

The physical environment is rich with elements that our 5 senses are attuned to receive.  Each sense is a system of detectors and channels that deliver messages.  The environmental elements are transmitted and become mutual information (the elements are copied).  These elements can be known (detected in consciousness) or be in the subconscious and the information transformed to mutual information during retrospection/remembering.  

The elements in the environment are there to be seen or smelled -- objectively.  physical information
The elements in the environment are there to be restructured into an affordance.  functional information 
The elements in the environment get detected.  mutual information
The elements in the environment with meaning for an agent can be understood as affordances, with mutual information that is functional.
etc.........................

I reckon everything available to your pattern (you), gets flattened (added up) non-classically (quantum coherence/interference etc) to a classical result (shared experience), so that there is never any infinite/circular regression. The classical result is a bit like taking a compass reading, getting your bearings, that's the starting state, the jumping off point which defines both you (the system defines you), and the system (you define the system), and limits the scope of the probabilistic calculation (flatten/add-up) to another classical result.

Bit like a worm, chomping through the information, and reweaving it as we pass through it. I sort of assume you pop out the other side at some point. Also whats interesting to me is that you wouldn't be able to alter informational relationships (chomping and reweaving) in some non-classical coherent place, where you have access to all information. As all of it (the information) would already be coherent (connected), so you'd have to isolate, go somewhere 'individual', where you can have access to some, but not all of the information, and some sort of non-classical-classical choice, so you can make alterations. More like a needle and thread, than coherence with the full roll of fabric.

Something like that anyway... doesn't sound too far away from your position... although we each use a different language.

There is a cluster of these:

What is the meaning of meaning?  How do you understand understanding?  Do we really know what we think we know?

The best viewpoint to jump over this - is the informational view.  Information is a 3 STEP causal model.  Rather than see a 2 step - cause -> effect model, information is  modeled as a source - a channel - and a receiver.  Seeing 3 step processes as if a 2 step process causes paradoxes, like the ones above.  The best example is that where the eye transmits information to the brain is the blind spot where the channel apparatus connects.

Think about this in the context of physics history.  Humanity in the majority, of history believed that organic stuff is a different substance than inanimate nature.  Today -- hopefully  -- this is a ridiculous view.  Every molecule is just that, there is no special substance.  We are transformers of materials and chemicals factories releasing energy.  There is no human chemical element.  Its all accounted for in and out analysis.

Take that scenario, and apply it to the realization of transformation of information as a science.  To think we make our own personal stuff that is informational is just as out of date.  We live in a sea of informational and we just transform it into useful experiences.

The physical environment is rich with elements that our 5 senses are attuned to receive.  Each sense is a system of detectors and channels that deliver messages.  The environmental elements are transmitted and become mutual information (the elements are copied).  These elements can be known (detected in consciousness) or be in the subconscious and the information transformed to mutual information during retrospection/remembering.  

The elements in the environment are there to be seen or smelled -- objectively.  physical information
The elements in the environment are there to be restructured into an affordance.  functional information 
The elements in the environment get detected.  mutual information
The elements in the environment with meaning for an agent can be understood as affordances, with mutual information that is functional.
etc.........................

I have read that Stephen, but it seems to be written in a language I do not understand, and perhaps describe some sort of alien world.

I have read that Stephen, but it seems to be written in a language I do not understand, and perhaps describe some sort of alien world.

I am sure it must seem that way to you and others.  My hope is that a common framework will render it as just a simple model for mind.  Only, until it is seen in a different framework could it jump into focus.  Let's try Hilbert space.  

Since you like to talk in QM terms, let's describe the "alien world" where this sits.  The term metric space is the formal meaning attached to the variable described as an "element in the environment".  Formal terms enable math relations to be used as framework.

 Few definitions are as fundamental to analysis as that of the metric space. In essence, a metric space is simply a collection of objects (e.g. numbers, matrices, pineapple flavored Bon Bons covered with flax seeds) with an associated rule, or function, that determines “distance” between two objects in the space.

https://www.whitman.edu/Documents/Academ...lipfel.pdf

Let's say there is a batch of molecules of an odorous compound (say, limonene a citrus smell) in the physical environment of a agent who is hungry and thirsty.  The organic molecule is a physical instantiation of the informational affordance that the orange emits.  ie.. the agent's olfactory detection has a probability to evolve into an internal signal to the agent AND the "message" carried with the molecules is connected as an information object between signal and agent.

A "rule" of organic molecules is: once detected they can attract a predictable response.  With this -- the elements referred to in the prior post can be physical information, as a molecular configuration.  Beyond the physical information there is related probabilities between the scent and an a fruit eater.  Further, the constraints of logic and strength of motivation can be made variables in a Hilbert space analysis.

You can stay in a ivory tower with science/philosophy, but in fact for profit commercial entities do track target individuals motivation to detect and consume elements.  There should be no naivete about how well AI works in using the data in ways much more sophisticated, using information science insights.  Methods that crunch big data about intent and motivation are currently being engineered to the max. 
https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/News/P...-Beverages

Using data entered by users, Gastrograph AI calculates its own representation of where each food and beverage lies in high-dimensional flavor space.

Jason Cohen, Founder and CEO of Analytical Flavor Systems, explains, “our artificial intelligence works by learning the position of each product in infinite dimensional Hilbert space, and modeling each flavor, aroma, and texture as a topological subspace. The math is complex, but it makes consumer science and product development insights fast and easy.”

The more Gastrograph AI is employed, the more predictive and precise it becomes. During the past 10 years, Analytical Flavor Systems has collected the largest sensory data set of perceptions and preferences of in-market products, with data on every ready-to-eat and ready-to-drink category

  

The qualia of flavor - let alone "high-dimensional flavor space" - is open to science and increased understanding, naturally.  Meaning is a natural phenomena and thinkers shouldn't be afraid to examine it, fearing that it will harm "deep meaning".  

My position is that deep meanings can be causal, as NDE's show.  Deeply felt emotions can transcend physics and information science and be powerful on their own.  The route to revealing that to be true - is to have science models that can support Psi and not detract.

Bit like a worm, chomping through the information, and reweaving it as we pass through it. I sort of assume you pop out the other side at some point. Also whats interesting to me is that you wouldn't be able to alter informational relationships (chomping and reweaving) in some non-classical coherent place, where you have access to all information. As all of it (the information) would already be coherent (connected), so you'd have to isolate, go somewhere 'individual', where you can have access to some, but not all of the information, and some sort of non-classical-classical choice, so you can make alterations. More like a needle and thread, than coherence with the full roll of fabric.

Something like that anyway... doesn't sound too far away from your position... although we each use a different language.

I enjoyed reading your figurative description of eating your way thru the fabric of information.  Werner Loewenstein describes it as a colonization of informational environments, as living things evolve their tools.

Since you got me thinking about it, I am more a magic carpet guy.  The sky to ride thru is the woven holographic background of all probabilities, with the present being the carpet.  Time caries you forward with the present warping (your reweaving) the holographic present.  With ripples going out both past and forward.

Happy and Healthy New Year to all who come here!

I am sure it must seem that way to you and others.  My hope is that a common framework will render it as just a simple model for mind.  Only, until it is seen in a different framework could it jump into focus.  Let's try Hilbert space.  

Since you like to talk in QM terms, let's describe the "alien world" where this sits.  The term metric space is the formal meaning attached to the variable described as an "element in the environment".  Formal terms enable math relations to be used as framework.

Honestly Stephen, I think there are two ways to approach the nature of mind. The first is to explore how far traditional science can take us, the second is to realise that mind is not describable within science and we are like the earliest scientists - simply observing phenomena and trying to explore and classify them.

You seem to want to straddle those two types of discussion, but it doesn't work very well.

The metric tensor I mentioned earlier is a mathematical object which broadens the definition of what a space is. It provides a way to calculate the distance between two points in that space. In a traditional space this would just be Pytharorus' Theorem, but these exotic spaces aren't so simple. As I pointed out, I think we should be less enthralled by mathematics - at least as it is applied to mind or psychic matters, because these more inclusive definitions don't necessarily correspond to our intuition of what a space is at all.

Sure, QM makes use of something called a Hilbert space, but it is really quite abstract. One way to describe it would be as a way to expand wave functions into orthogonal components, rather like Fourier analysis is used to break up a waveform - e.g. a sound - into its distinct frequency components. To me, this is more a mathematical tool to explore approximate solutions of QM problems because it represents the solution as a sum of components, each multiplied by a coefficient. This is one way to solve the partial differential equations that QM defines.

David

Honestly Stephen, I think there are two ways to approach the nature of mind. The first is to explore how far traditional science can take us, the second is to realise that mind is not describable within science and we are like the earliest scientists - simply observing phenomena and trying to explore and classify them.

You seem to want to straddle those two types of discussion, but it doesn't work very well.

After a hundred years or more, aren't QM and Information Theory "traditional", since several generations of scientists have been trained in their evolving traditions?  I think the journey to an understanding of mental processes is far from complete, the reason being it isn't a simple and coherent model being presented to the public.

Science moves from data - to data pattern - to analysis of patterns.  It is bottoms-up and is very reliable because of it.  I am pointing out the opposite view - that a top-down model ties together the complex results in the phenomenal world.  The more at the core of reality, the more generalized and heuristic it becomes.  A model that predicts all specific outcomes would be massive, tautological and maybe impossible to understand.  Hence, I understand the Mysterian position and appreciate Colin McGinn's well-crafted exposition of it.  

What is missing is a simple model - not one that captures complexity of all phenomena - but just has a possible vector to frame all events in its environment.  A simple and complete model is available in describing two environments interacting activitly in different and dynamic ways.  Minds can access the past and future in a non physical way, by changing what information and meanings are in play.    I am not a Dualist, but a pluralist who thinks there are more that 2 environments, and assume another where ethical and transcendent events may occur. 

My approach to mind is to define how to delineate what is information and what is physical.  Physics and Materials Science define an environment and its primary variables.  They are called the SI units.  https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-mea...i/si-units

None of the SI units measure mind.  Mind is thought to be a noun and a thing in the physical environment.  If mind is a verb and operating in its own environment - that predicts a second set of measurement tools that cover a separate level of structure and activity.  Minds change real-world probabilities and these are measurable.  The resulting data is not mapping "some immaterial" life-force, but logical information and meaning used by agents colonizing their local information space.  

As to the space/time and mind question?  I don't think that any physical theory is in play.  Space/time IS the background of the physical environment.  Yet, there is another environment --- one where an active agent - can go backwards in time and grab substantial hunks of important "stuff"  - and bring it back to the here and now.  Its called remembering.

I don't follow this.  May be semantics, but "meaning" is inexorably tied to "consciousness".  Without the latter, there is no former.  So asserting that nature (presuming you mean the physical universe) is independently full of meaning just doesn't square for me.

What would "meaning" be defined as if we weren't here (being anthropomorphic here)?

Hope for Psi to be mainstream comes from science challenging just-so story's about what is truly experienced.

Rather than flogging my own viewpoint that Psi and Synchronicity fall from a simple model of mind, here is an excellent writer on the tradition of the association of deeper meanings / synchronicity and objective meaning.

    Chief among the considerations that led Jung (1952b) nonetheless to postulate objective meaning were synchronistic phenomena themselves, whether spontaneous or induced, with their apparent ability to transcend the limitations of space and time to reveal ‘“absolute knowledge” […] a knowledge not mediated by the sense organs […], knowledge of future or spatially distant events’ (par. 948). In addition, by way of cultural support, he adduced in Chapter 3 of his main essay on synchronicity a range of Chinese, Greek, Medieval, and Renaissance forerunners of his idea of synchronicity—notions of Tao, the sympathy of all things, correspondences, microcosm and macrocosm, and pre-established harmony—each of which presupposes the existence of objective meaning (pars. 916–946). As further indications, he referred to dreams whose content seems to suggest the idea of self-subsistent meaning (pars. 945­­–946); to the ‘“meaningful” or “intelligent” behaviour of the lower organisms, which are without a brain’ (pars. 947–948); and to out-of-body-experiences or, as he refers to them, ‘remarkable observations made during deep syncopes’ (pars. 949–955). R. Main

https://paricenter.com/library/pari-pers...hronicity/

Roderick Main is presenting this in a on-line seminar.

 Saturday February 20: Numinous Matter: Synchronicity and the Reanimation of the Physical World

with Roderick Main
In this session we shall explore the implications of synchronicity for our experience of and relationship to the physical world.  The presumption of disenchanted science is that matter is in itself inherently inert and devoid of meaning.  Contrary to this, with the concept of synchronicity as well as his use of alchemical symbolism, Jung proposed that meaning and numinosity, as expressions of the psychoid archetype, could be inherent properties of not only the psyche but also matter.  Such a view arguably fosters a more participative and respectful, rather than instrumental and exploitative, relationship to the physical world.  We shall examine some of the experiences and underpinning philosophical assumptions that have been invoked in support of this view.

https://paricenter.com/event/synchronici...nd-matter/