http://www.informationphilosopher.com

[RichardY]

Thought the site http://www.informationphilosopher.com might be of interest to those looking to learn about different concepts in philosophy. The author Bob Doyle(Harvard associate), seems to have similar views on Freewill as Stefan. Came across the site while looking up Incompatibilism.

[barn]

Hi @RichardY

It looks promising, thank you. I've seen it has a great amount of references, looks really useful.

 

[MercurySunlight]

Thanks from me also.

I've been looking for something like this.

[Mole]

On 3/27/2018 at 2:40 PM, RichardY said:

Thought the site http://www.informationphilosopher.com might be of interest to those looking to learn about different concepts in philosophy. The author Bob Doyle(Harvard associate), seems to have similar views on Freewill as Stefan. Came across the site while looking up Incompatibilism.

Interesting. I  genuinely appreciate your post. It posits that information is shared between matter, and not only to and between people.

I guess one criticism that popped to mind of information philosophy is that information is reducible to smaller parts of information, fundamental properties are irreducible, therefore information is not a fundamental property.

For example, how a living organism functions is reducible to molecules of the organism. This higher level information is created when lower level information is created. It makes me think that these information don't really exist and what only exists is what is most reducible, the most fundamental thing, which is actually the matter and energy. If information exists, I would expect that it wouldn't be reducible. Maybe it would at least exist on some particular level, like the quantum level for example, and there things would happen seemingly randomly and we wouldn't be able to reduce it any further or explain it with any other information and we would call this the real information. It seems more reasonable to say that only the irreducible particles exist, and that information is the abstraction of these irreducible particles and this can only occur in the mind. This does bring back the mind-body problem. Perhaps the particles actually depend on the abstractions, like in free will? Well, then we are getting into new metaphysical territory and that requires further explanation.

 

However, assuming the theory is true it does seem to solve the hard problem of consciousness. If information is inherent in matter, then the matter is conscious to the degree that the information is integrated (look up Integrated Information Theory). This consciousness does not need some extra explanation because the consciousness is that information which is not the matter itself but something else. Consciousness and information are the same thing. It's just that consciousness becomes more complex and the information becomes more integrated. This seems to be a kind of dualism and panpsychism. Information in matter does seem to make more sense than information simply in our brain. Ordinary matter is much simpler than the brain. But that is precisely why it holds less information. A water molecule holds the information of a water molecule. A brain holds some information of a water molecule and extra. It seems a much more simplistic, intuitive explanation for abstractions, change, knowledge, consciousness, etc. It also gives purpose to the cosmos. Namely, to integrate information. It gives a philosophical explanation to some degree why there are humans and other animals rather than no humans and other animals. Unfortunately, I have doubts information philosophy is valid.

[barn]

Hi @Mole

Have you heard about something called 'Hawking radiation' ? (a theory, the debate is still active and unresolved) Perhaps you would also enjoy reading about the 'Black hole information paradox'.

[RichardY]

9 hours ago, Mole said:

Interesting. I  genuinely appreciate your post. It posits that information is shared between matter, and not only to and between people.

I guess one criticism that popped to mind of information philosophy is that information is reducible to smaller parts of information, fundamental properties are irreducible, therefore information is not a fundamental property.

Though as information is reducible, eventually you come to something irreducible, causa prima. Perhaps taking a linear example 0 & 1, but in reality a pulse, a musical note?
 

9 hours ago, Mole said:

For example, how a living organism functions is reducible to molecules of the organism. This higher level information is created when lower level information is created. It makes me think that these information don't really exist and what only exists is what is most reducible, the most fundamental thing, which is actually the matter and energy. If information exists, I would expect that it wouldn't be reducible. Maybe it would at least exist on some particular level, like the quantum level for example, and there things would happen seemingly randomly and we wouldn't be able to reduce it any further or explain it with any other information and we would call this the real information. It seems more reasonable to say that only the irreducible particles exist, and that information is the abstraction of these irreducible particles and this can only occur in the mind. This does bring back the mind-body problem. Perhaps the particles actually depend on the abstractions, like in free will? Well, then we are getting into new metaphysical territory and that requires further explanation.

--------

It must be reckoned a psychic catastrophe when the ego is  assimilated by the self. The image of wholeness then remains in the unconscious, so that on the one hand it shares the archaic nature of the unconscious and on the other finds itself in the psychically relative space-time continuum that is characteristic of the unconscious as such. Both these qualities are numinous  and hence have an unlimited determining effect on ego-consciousness, which is differentiated, i.e., separated, from the unconscious and moreover exists in an absolute space and an absolute time. It is a vital necessity that this should be so. If, therefore, the ego falls for any length of time under the control 
of an unconscious factor, its adaptation is disturbed and the way opened for all sorts of possible accidents. 

Hence it is of the greatest importance that the ego should  be anchored in the world of consciousness and that consciousness should be reinforced by a very precise adaptation. For this,  certain virtues like attention, conscientiousness, patience, etc.,

------ Aion Carl G Jung

I would say particles depend on absolute space time.

9 hours ago, Mole said:

However, assuming the theory is true it does seem to solve the hard problem of consciousness. If information is inherent in matter, then the matter is conscious to the degree that the information is integrated (look up Integrated Information Theory). This consciousness does not need some extra explanation because the consciousness is that information which is not the matter itself but something else. Consciousness and information are the same thing. It's just that consciousness becomes more complex and the information becomes more integrated. This seems to be a kind of dualism and panpsychism. Information in matter does seem to make more sense than information simply in our brain. Ordinary matter is much simpler than the brain. But that is precisely why it holds less information. A water molecule holds the information of a water molecule. A brain holds some information of a water molecule and extra. It seems a much more simplistic, intuitive explanation for abstractions, change, knowledge, consciousness, etc. It also gives purpose to the cosmos. Namely, to integrate information. It gives a philosophical explanation to some degree why there are humans and other animals rather than no humans and other animals. Unfortunately, I have doubts information philosophy is valid.

Consciousness is absolute to the extent it exists, but instead of viewing it as one undivided entity(Carl jung's "Image of Wholeness". Or, like if you were doing a PC backup disc image) it is something integrated by the brain, for instance the brain perceives a tiny amount of photons, and then rapidly scans with the eye to fabricate an image(to economise on the visual cortex). 

Where as information is relative.

[Mole]

14 hours ago, RichardY said:

Though as information is reducible, eventually you come to something irreducible, causa prima. Perhaps taking a linear example 0 & 1, but in reality a pulse, a musical note?

Specifically, what exists is irreducible. Even if information is reducible, it still means that higher level information is an abstraction and does not exist. However, knowledge is knowledge of abstractions. This means that knowledge is different from irreducible information, but that is absurd because the idea of information stems from our idea of knowledge. So, it should be rather that information does not exist.

[RichardY]

45 minutes ago, Mole said:

Specifically, what exists is irreducible. Even if information is reducible, it still means that higher level information is an abstraction and does not exist. However, knowledge is knowledge of abstractions. This means that knowledge is different from irreducible information, but that is absurd because the idea of information stems from our idea of knowledge. So, it should be rather that information does not exist.

Technically even diamonds are reducible though, do diamonds exist? The most stable element being Iron, I think. Might be why Aristotle uses the term essence to describe a substance(as opposed to existence). Purity Of Essence. "Ice cream mandrake?, childrens ice cream!" - Dr Strangelove.

Yes, but knowledge still requires a subject(ego), to know the abstraction. If information did not exist, how would it be possible to chart a course?

Essence precedth Existence - Sartre (wrong)

Consciousness(Essence) comes after existence(Being), which then allows the imposition of values, manipulation of relative space time.

[Mole]

On 5/24/2018 at 2:30 AM, RichardY said:

do diamonds exist?

Perhaps we should say that information exists on all levels, kind of indiscriminately. What I mean is that it isn't necessary that the irreducible particles of a diamond precede the diamond. The particles and the diamond co-exist and change together at the same time. In fact, imagining that the diamond precedes the particles is equally as bad. Maybe what is happening is that the information of the diamond is determining the structure at every level, so a higher structure is not any more abstract than a reduced structure. We are just used to thinking that reduced structures somehow precede larger structures because that's how we build buildings, ship, etc and how we try to understand how they work.

[RichardY]

On 6/3/2018 at 7:06 AM, Mole said:

Perhaps we should say that information exists on all levels, kind of indiscriminately. What I mean is that it isn't necessary that the irreducible particles of a diamond precede the diamond. The particles and the diamond co-exist and change together at the same time. In fact, imagining that the diamond precedes the particles is equally as bad. Maybe what is happening is that the information of the diamond is determining the structure at every level, so a higher structure is not any more abstract than a reduced structure. We are just used to thinking that reduced structures somehow precede larger structures because that's how we build buildings, ship, etc and how we try to understand how they work.

"Specifically, what exists is irreducible" - So you would say now that information exists. What also exists?

Particles come before the diamond? A diamond could be presumably reduced to individual carbon atoms. Which although it were to be reduced, it would no longer be a diamond. I guess it would be fair to say that. 

Although if something can be reduced, reducible by what?