What is Information? Bernardo Kastrup | Shamil Chandaria on Idealism & Integrated Information Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- An excerpt from our discussion series "With Reality in Mind"
Dr Shamil Chandaria has 30 years experience in mathematical modelling a background in Natural Sciences and later Economics at Cambridge University, a PhD from the London School of Economics, in mathematical modelling of financial economic systems and an MA in Philosophy from University College London where he developed an interest in philosophy of science and philosophical issues in biology and neuroscience. Shamil was previously a visiting academic at the Future of Humanities Institute at Oxford and is a Strategic Advisor at DeepMind.
The full discussion from this evening is at • Bernardo Kastrup on Me...
To join future editions live, please visit www.adventures...
If you would like to support content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: / adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless...
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com...
Information is not stuff, it is relationship.
Information is a difference that can make a difference.
Gregory Bateson:
Information is a difference that makes a difference.
Answers, straight up. Information means knowledge of THE PATH. 💯😎🌸
Bernardo is closest to undersand IIT. it will be interesting, if there be chat between him and Giulio Tononi.
They are in conversation I believe
Rainbow picture our Eternal Consciousness,
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
Memory, (-Body, fourth Deep-Sleep) is our Highest mental Ability,
where 'it all', is stored, including 'Information'.
Just short.
It used to be called intelligence. 🙄 I was unaware of these so-called philosophical factors. Childish mumbo-jumbo
I have a lot of disagreements with other Bernardo but he’s exactly right about this. Information is not a substrate (and further computation is not an ontology)
Symbols which accuratel communicate concepts of reality.
Who agrees about reality?
*The Tyranny of Words* (1938) by Stuart Chase
George Orwell mentioned Chase in an essay on politics. He published the book, *A New Deal* , shortly before FDR's famous speech. He was a member of FDR's brain trust.
Baggage does not get it. lol 😊
Thank you both.
You put too much subjectivity in your talk. Be more objective in your speech! You seem to have all the answers, which is not true for sure.
Maybe a grin is not a thing, but information about such a grin is indeed something. It can be stored, transmitted, destroyed, etc. Information however requires and implies the existence of an adequate interpreter; otherwise it's just noise.
Thank you for sharing. You said Lewis Carrol and Cheshire quantum cat. Just to show you a weird memetic wonderland.
ALICE detector and the white rabbit timing ToF. Root OS and trees. Tweedle sets and quantum cats and snark graph theory and color theories. H3 superfluidity boojum. Alice strings and alice rings. Mad hatter an anagram for mathed art. XD
Other than that I agree mostly. Lots of science has been butchered by people in ways. From many possible states vs manyworlds and Ocums razor. To quantum effects vs biochemical and brain thinking. Lots of things getting skewed to religious beliefs. Playcating to a type of crowd.
As others have opined, there are some strawmen and confusion about Information here. Information represents some thing, but the observed universe IS the representation, the information, not the "thing" , which is without form or objective structure. The observed universe comes out of the process of representation, it is not the thing being represented.
Agreed. Would a good "abstract" example be this - a star 10 light years away goes supernova, but I don't know about it for 10 years. The photons emitted by the substrate (star) continue to carry the information of a now dead star. For 10 years, I am given a false representation of the stars current existence by information which is for all intents and purposes presenting me with a lie - the information is not the thing (star) being represented. Or am I way off point? I mean, I know photons are "things" but for this example ill let that slide for the purpose of analogy.
Is it a lie or are we simply not being specific enough by omitting the information that we know the light we currently perceive is a representation of the system as it was 10 years ago? Since we're ultimately describing a quality of spacetime, it seems like that omission would be the equivalent of ignoring units of a variable in an equation.
@@markcoren2842 Yes, I see what you mean and its certainly a flaw in the analogy. It isn't a great example from a physics perspective. Lie was a poor choice of wording. I wonder if illusion is a better term? From what I could gather the OP/Bernardo said the observed universe is the representation of information, not the substrate. I was using the star and the lag in spacetime to try and picture the difference between the substrate and information. The information (in this case photons), although certainly real to the observer, is always only an representation (or an illusion from my perspective) of the substrate (star). Sorry, I'm new to IIT but I find it fascinating.
So information is a description of the state of physical systems, in values of its state variables. The values of the state variables obviously determine the behavior and outcome when two systems interact. States may change during interactions. No doubt information is what influences system behaviors. It must be okay to encourage people to consider physical systems as having information in its state in addition to the material that implements it.
Stallone.
42nd
Are you aware that, NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING,
FROM WHERE DO THIS NINETEEN CAME FROM IN MATHEMATICS
if particles aren't conscious, then what is the substance that is?
Bernardo's proposal is that consciousness is the substrate of existence - check out his free course on Essentia Foundation for a full explanation, or his upcoming book 'Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell'
The information state is everything that it IS and everything that it IS NOT. Numbers themselves are relational or cannot exist alone to make sense. Every word in a language like English may have a separate or isolated meaning but for mathematics the relations and not the numbers are the meaning. The numbers themselves are markers or placeholders.
Information and Local Realism:
To prove that information is locally real, we need to define what we mean by "information" in this context. Let's consider a definition:
Definition: Information is a measure of the state of a system that can be transmitted and received within the constraints of special relativity.
Theorem: Information, as defined above, is locally real.
Proof:
a) Consider two spatially separated events, A and B.
b) Let I_A be the information content at A, and I_B be the information content at B.
c) By the principle of causality and special relativity, any change in I_B due to A cannot occur faster than the speed of light.
d) Therefore, information respects locality.
e) The state of the system carrying the information (e.g., particles, fields) has definite values before measurement, satisfying realism.
f) Thus, information, as we've defined it, is locally real.
Information = differences that make a difference (G. Bateson)
Information = Will of awareness.
Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪
Brillant
always wonderful and educative to listen to Bernardo & learn.
Great summary at the end*
thank you!
Hey, it's Integrated informsyion Theory NOT Information Integrated Theory. Bernardo, help him.
Shit, I misspelled that!
do you mean in the title? Now corrected. Thanks!
"It creates a vacuum which was filled in by people with poor cognitive skills." Why not just come out and say it: "PHILOSOPHY ROCKS!" People with 'poor cognitive skills' are nothing more than the exact same people who typically ridicule philosophy. There's a reason that the wikipedia first-link game almost invariably ends up on the philosophy page.
No Bernardo...information is what is known. It is the object pole that is represented in a knowledge event, knowing being the subjective pole. His claim that it is a description of a substrate is a contradiction to his Idealism! He is presenting a substance ontology with his top and its spin example, that is physicalism! He fully fails to grasp that information is stored, like we have information stored in our memory. When he says that it is nonsense that when the dancers leaves and the choreography remains, that is substance ontology. In a process ontology the Quantum Particle is a bundle of continuously emerging and subsiding field dispositions, there is no abiding particle, it is a process. There is no abiding self as an enduring identity, it is a continuously new identity being enacted by incidental causes, just like that particle. It is information as experienced stuff and the ego, which is also information i.e. self-referencing information, identifies with the transitory experiences, which is simply stuff known i.e information. When he says IIT (at 4:34) as "information integration is the information that is implied by the qualitative dynamics of experience. Information is a way to describe the degree of something, something qualitative about experience." he is highly confused! The qualitative experience, i.e. the qualia of say how an orange tastes, is the subjective representation of the information received! Another conscious entity like a bug may taste the same orange and have a totally different qualitative subjective representation of that information received. He then goes on to talk about mass, but in doing so he contradicts what he just said about the dancer, because he is saying mass is not the property of a substantial object there, yet he just said the choreography was a property of the dancer, so this is a contradiction! So the take away of Bernardo's view is (10:21) "information is a way to characterize the discernable dynamics of qualitative States" NO NO NO, information is the data received by the cognitive apparatus, this is information processing/cognitive processing, AI does this! The qualitative experience is the representation of that information in phenomenal (subjective) consciousness, AI does NOT do that.
Not to mention that this man is so arrogant that it is a complete turn off! Everything he has said here is the bullshit (to use his inflammatory language)! He has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding, he has fully demonstrated his ignorance!
@@DavidKolbSantosh The issue lies in your understanding, Kolb. Kastrup is trying to clarify that mass is simply a convenient way to describe certain behaviors. When Kastrup says, "Mass does not have ontological substance", he means to say that mass, like information, is not out there by itself.
@@artapanah2104 no, according to him it is not in an individual mind it is in "mind at large" I can measure that mass and so can you. Therefore it is information that either of us can receive as information receivers. And independent of you or I it exist an event of information transfer as an interaction or a relationship, which every interaction is. And you are not understanding what I am saying above! Every interaction as an event of information integration is a "view". There is an information transfer. In any event of information integration the receiver of that information undergoes structural change. This is basic to information theory. There is no new information nor can information be destroyed. it is conserved! And let me iterate Kastrup here does not know what he is talking about! And he has clearly contradicted himself! And it is you you have failed to understand what I said above!
@@artapanah2104 no, according to him it is not in an individual mind it is in "mind at large" I can measure that mass and so can you. Therefore it is information that either of us can receive as information receivers. And independent of you or I it exist an event of information transfer as an interaction or a relationship, which every interaction is. And you are not understanding what I am saying above! Every interaction as an event of information integration is a "view". There is an information transfer. In any event of information integration the receiver of that information undergoes structural change. This is basic to information theory. There is no new information nor can information be destroyed. it is conserved! And let me iterate Kastrup here does not know what he is talking about! And he has clearly contradicted himself! And it is you you have failed to understand what I said above!
He correctly defined Information and then proceeded to provide misinformation about Physicalism.
Berny is becoming irrelevant, and he needs to create "hot topics".
iN~formation: I.S. (In-formation System) being formed ~ created ~ evolving, entropy. 010
Information is something minds communicate as a reference pointer to a computation or composition (information is also composition and computation). Not only is the choreography a computation and composition, but as well as dancer, as well as the waves and the water, it's all computation (the whole universe is a mathematical structure). Therefore, integrated information theory is a theory of panpsychism, because there is more integrated information (kinetic exchanges) within a star or hot object, than there is in a brain. The differential that is important to consciousness is proportional to (number of *different* compositions you can reconstruct using *different* computations, rather than the information integration of the system [which is ambiguous, because what if the information is all the same, and there is no differentials within that integrated information? You wouldn't be conscious of very much other than 1 type of composition and computation]). Therefore consciousness is more about the number of differentials you can measure and integrate recursively to build a composition (there has to be differentials, otherwise there is no awareness (comparing differentials) or delta in awareness (change in comparisons)). Therefore, it's more about comparing differentials (the real stuff of consciousness) in a integrated way.