All Bound Up, Mind The Numbers: Natural Minds And Informational Consciousness
A very large part of space-time must be investigated if reliable results are to be obtained.
Alan Turing
An honest man is always a child.
Socrates
The “mind,” as with “consciousness,” as terms have garnered a reputation as symbols of the spiritual or otherworldly raining down on the ordinary life of now. Somehow, a supernatural unification of phenomenal experience. Somehow, another world entirely airdropping qualia into a singular field of subjectivity.
Somehow, a divine presence in the form of a spirit or a soul embedded in the heart of a human being or bound to some Source extant at the beginning and end of all. Somehow, some Alpha and Omega binding all as one unto itself and gifting a singlet experience for each conscious being. Somehow, a holy text, reality as a language, and word games to close the gap while making a fool and pretending to not act as such.
Somehow... in the face of overwhelming complexity, and befuddled masses, and confused leaders of thought, and poorly evolved minds, other ploys are invented to explain one of the mysteries or problems of the evolutionary world, the brain, and the mind. Naturalism as a counter to the supernatural claims, while still limited.
What if? Just, what if? What if the explanations of the processes of the natural world happen in accordance with principles of existence or Laws of Nature, and so human beings must be explained in like manner?
What if the brain is part of the natural world, and so must be explained in like manner? What if the body and the brain are part of the natural world, and so must be explained in like manner? What if “consciousness” and “mind” were completely disconnected from the spiritual or otherworldly?
In a natural world, these terms become meaningless with a sense of the ordinary. Life becomes an ordinary process. Existence becomes itself. The universe manifests as a self-such process, as out of the necessity of existence, as life out of Universe.
“Existence,” “Life,” “Universe,” each as manifestations of the ordinary, not extraordinary – not in size or variation, but in continuity. Things exist and flow one from the other.
The order of the Universe means nothing, as a disorder or pervasive inconsistency would mean nullification of the structure of the Universe, so, in the end, no universe. Whether an argument for divine creation or transcendental generativity or identity of reality as a god, these amount to word games from The Word people.
If discarded, the more parsimonious explanation sat in front all along; all these acts of existence are not choices to exist, but inevitabilities of existence with pathways of possibilities as probabilities manifesting as they can and not as they should. Whatever the world, we live in the best of all possible worlds because all worlds are the best of worlds because they are possible.
What if? Truly, what if? What if terms including “mind” and “consciousness” mean the same process of unification of qualia, phenomenological experience, and apparent unitary subjectivity in the Universe?
Terms matter, similarly, for example, the multiverse proposed would be a universe, as the universe is all that exists or virtually exists. A multiverse converges to a universe and an original universe becomes a singlet in this universe, so voiding the term and not the idea of the multiverse.
Our hidden assumptions and wrongful derivations from the terminology lead us astray in coming to correct views about the world as a natural dynamic object grounded in the valueless exchange of information as in an informational particularity and informational cosmology.
Information as transforms of spatiotemporal quantities of reality from one moment of time manifested into the next as pathways permit from current organizational structures of reality.
One such series of manifestations come from dynamic, complex structural transforms of the human nervous system with an apparent tight correspondence to individual subjective experience and externalized behavior.
Mind and consciousness mean subjective experience. An apparent unification of qualities of experience, objects perceived, concepts formed, and thoughts strung along with the concepts about the concepts, the objects, and the qualities of experience.
In turn, a concretized sensibility of subjective experience, as mind and consciousness, mean a technical, informational, finite series of transforms over a finite amount of moments. These transform amount to the micro-mosaic mirror informational universe in a spatiotemporal quantity.
The informational content of a human brain can be calculated in this manner and the time in life can provide a ranged metric of the amount of transformation of states, so the quantity of information in this spatiotemporal quantity.
No infinities exist here. Akin to the numbers, a hidden assumption in numbers belies the reality of reality, the nature of nature, the fundaments of the cosmos and the universe. In a finite universe, Universe can be represented by numbers, finitely.
The hidden assumptions of the numbers come from the infinities. A series of precision requires information and increasing precision needs more information; infinities differ and many apparent infinities in numbers rest on true finite. Infinite precision requires infinite information.
0.0 differs from 0.00 and 0.000 differs from 0.0000. In this manner, 0.0 becomes an approximation 0.0000 and the common assumption or premise behind numbers is an infinite series with 0.00000…, so as to demarcate reality, in our representations, as an infinite object.
We must reflect. If an infinite object, and dynamic, so transformational, then an infinitely informational object with changes of state – one into another. These mark an oddity, an error. The universe becomes an apparent finite construct with functional infinite aspects (large finite beyond current comprehension).
The infinities hidden in mental constructs of numbers when applied to the Universe must be truncated to make reality real in the mappings or couplings of approximate mental constructs to its true frame(s).
In like manner, folk psychological notions of consciousness and mind relate to hidden infinities to hide or mistake the nature of the matter; "subjective experience" does not, as we experience the limitations at all possible moments of subjectivity.
Consciousness as another worldly creation bound to this world pertains to a feeling of an infinitude beyond the natural, so the supernatural, the metaphysical, or the extra material, the non-informational. Same with mind.
When chucked out of incoherence, due to poor explanation, or elasticity of definitional bounds to make the superfluous or meaningless, in definition, seem profound, simplicity sets forth. The universe is a finite construct; mind and consciousness as subjective experience, as technical products of evolution – pressure, selection, reproduction, further pressure, selection, reproduction.
Structure, the nervous system, and process, informational transforms of the structure, and associated apparency of unity of the qualities of experience, the objects of experience, the concepts of experience, and thoughts related to them, unavoidably exist as finite, as Universe remains inevitably finite.
Numbers, subjective experience, and Universe come to the reality of finitude and informational transforms – the so-called natural found in Naturalism with precision and proper, deeper definition. Thusly, which is all to state, Naturalism is correct, while Informationalism is more correct.
Quod erat demonstratum.
Opinions and Perspectives
This informational approach to consciousness might actually make it easier to study scientifically.
The connection between information processing and subjective experience feels more natural than I expected.
Really appreciate how this framework doesn't require any supernatural elements to explain consciousness.
Wonder how this theory might explain the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics.
The article's treatment of infinity in both mathematics and consciousness is particularly insightful.
This perspective might help bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience.
I find the idea that consciousness is bound by the same natural laws as everything else quite compelling.
The implications for personal identity and the self are quite profound if consciousness is purely informational.
This view of consciousness might help explain why our subjective experience feels unified yet limited.
The article makes me wonder about the role of language in shaping our understanding of consciousness.
I'm fascinated by how this might change our understanding of collective consciousness and shared experience.
This perspective on consciousness seems more testable than traditional philosophical approaches.
The connection between information processing and subjective experience is more compelling than I expected.
I appreciate how this view doesn't try to solve the mystery of consciousness by appealing to something supernatural.
The article's emphasis on finite rather than infinite processes feels more scientifically approachable.
This makes me think differently about the relationship between consciousness and memory.
The idea that existence isn't a choice but an inevitability is strangely comforting.
Wonder how this perspective might change our understanding of consciousness disorders.
The article's treatment of subjectivity as finite information processing is quite elegant.
I find it interesting how this theory might explain the gradual emergence of consciousness in evolution.
The part about hidden assumptions in numbers really helped me understand the larger argument about consciousness.
This seems to suggest that consciousness isn't special or mysterious, just complex. That's both enlightening and humbling.
I'm curious about how this view might change our approach to studying consciousness empirically.
The article really challenges our intuitive understanding of infinity in both mathematics and consciousness.
Anyone else find the idea of consciousness as information processing both exciting and a bit unsettling?
This framework might help bridge the gap between physical and experiential descriptions of consciousness.
The connection between universe finiteness and consciousness finiteness is fascinating. Makes perfect logical sense.
Wonder how this informational view of consciousness might impact our understanding of dreams and altered states.
The article's approach to naturalism feels more complete than traditional materialist explanations.
I'm particularly intrigued by the idea that precision requires information. It seems obvious now but I'd never thought about it.
This perspective could revolutionize how we think about artificial intelligence and machine consciousness.
The article made me realize how many of our assumptions about consciousness come from religious or spiritual traditions.
It's interesting to consider how this view might affect our understanding of animal consciousness.
The idea that consciousness is finite rather than infinite could have profound implications for psychology.
I appreciate how the article maintains scientific rigor while tackling such a complex philosophical topic.
This reminds me of Shannon's information theory, but applied to consciousness in a novel way.
The article's treatment of the multiverse concept is particularly clever. It shows how careful we need to be with our terminology.
I'm struck by how this view might change our understanding of personal identity and the self.
The connection between numerical precision and consciousness is brilliant. It makes abstract concepts more concrete.
Does anyone else think this could change how we approach the study of consciousness in scientific research?
I keep coming back to the idea that we're part of an inevitable process rather than a chosen one. It's both humbling and fascinating.
The article's treatment of numbers and precision really helps explain the concept of finite information in a tangible way.
This makes me think about the limitations of human consciousness in a new way. We're finite beings trying to understand infinity.
The part about reality being finite but functionally infinite for our understanding is particularly thought-provoking.
I wonder how this view of consciousness might change our approach to mental health and therapy.
The implications for artificial intelligence are huge if consciousness is really just complex information processing.
This naturalistic approach to consciousness feels like a breath of fresh air in a field often clouded by mysticism.
I love how the article challenges our assumptions about infinity. Makes me question other concepts I might be taking for granted.
The article's approach reminds me of Douglas Hofstadter's work on consciousness. Anyone else see the connection?
Sometimes I think we're too quick to dismiss traditional views of consciousness. Even if they're wrong, they might contain valuable insights.
What's fascinating is how this framework might explain the evolution of consciousness as simply the development of more complex information processing.
The article makes me wonder about the relationship between information and time. If consciousness is informational, how does it relate to our experience of time?
I'm not convinced that reducing everything to information processing is helpful. It seems to ignore the qualitative aspects of experience.
The idea that consciousness is finite rather than infinite is actually quite liberating. It means we might eventually understand it completely.
Just because something can be explained through information processing doesn't make it any less wonderful or meaningful.
The article's discussion of precision in numbers really opened my eyes. We take so many mathematical concepts for granted.
This reminds me of integrated information theory, though it takes a different approach. Anyone else see the parallels?
Am I the only one who found it refreshing that the article didn't try to mystify consciousness? It's nice to see it treated as a natural phenomenon.
The connection between finite information and consciousness makes me wonder about artificial intelligence. Could we create consciousness by processing enough information?
I appreciate how the article challenges spiritual interpretations of consciousness without dismissing the complexity of subjective experience.
Well, maybe free will is just another informational process we haven't fully understood yet. The article seems to suggest everything can be explained through information theory.
The article feels a bit too deterministic for my taste. Where does free will fit into this informational framework?
I found the discussion about hidden assumptions in numbers fascinating. Makes me wonder what other basic concepts we take for granted without proper examination.
What struck me most was the idea that we're living in the best possible world simply because it's the possible world that happened. That's both depressing and liberating.
This perspective seems to completely ignore the hard problem of consciousness. How does information processing give rise to subjective experience?
The whole finite versus infinite debate reminded me of Zeno's paradoxes. We often get trapped in theoretical infinities that don't exist in practice.
I'm curious about the practical implications. If consciousness is informational, could we theoretically measure or quantify it?
The article's take on the multiverse was particularly interesting. Never thought about how calling it a multiverse might be contradictory if it's all just part of one larger universe.
Actually, that's exactly what makes this theory elegant. It doesn't need anything supernatural to explain consciousness, just natural processes we can understand and study.
I find the idea that consciousness is just information processing rather reductionist. Surely there's more to human experience than just data transformation?
The Socrates quote about an honest man being always a child seems to suggest we should approach these concepts with fresh eyes, without preconceptions.
I work in neuroscience, and this perspective aligns well with our current understanding of brain function as information processing. Though I think the author could have included more empirical evidence.
The article made me rethink how we use numbers to represent reality. I've never considered that 0.0 and 0.00 might actually represent different levels of precision rather than the same value.
Honestly, I'm struggling to wrap my head around this informational consciousness concept. Can someone explain it in simpler terms?
Anyone else find it interesting how the article connects Turing's quote about space-time investigation to the overall theme? It's like suggesting we need to look at the bigger picture to understand consciousness.
The part about finite universe and finite consciousness makes a lot of sense to me. We often overcomplicate these concepts by assuming infinite properties where none might exist.
I disagree with the complete rejection of spiritual aspects. While I appreciate the naturalistic approach, there's still so much we don't understand about consciousness that can't be reduced to pure information processing.
What really caught my attention was the comparison between numerical precision and consciousness. Never thought about how our assumption of infinite precision in numbers might parallel our misconceptions about consciousness.
I'm fascinated by how this article challenges our traditional understanding of consciousness. The idea that consciousness might be fundamentally informational rather than spiritual is quite compelling.