Q & A

What features of neuron in the brain enable us to have consciousness?

AB

There is no definitive scientific consensus on the exact neural mechanisms that give rise to consciousness, but there are some leading theories about features of neurons that likely play an important role:

• Complex patterns of connectivity between many different regions of the brain, enabling high-level integration of information. The "connectome" - the map of neural connections in the brain - is very extensive and enables global coordination of neural activity.
• Recurrent processing loops that allow areas of the brain to integrate information over time and sustain representations. Many areas have feedback connections that support circulating activation.
• Synchronized firing of neurons that coordinate far-flung brain areas. Oscillations of neural firing may facilitate information exchange and binding of distributed information.
• Special structures like the thalamocortical system which is believed to contribute to regulating consciousness and possibly integrating information.
• Flexible hubs that rapidly adapt their connectivity to coordinate different neural processors in a task-appropriate manner. Certain regions seem to flexibly connect other parts of the brain.

In summary, consciousness likely emerges from the ability of the brain to integrate a vast amount of information across large-scale networks of neurons in the cortex. The intricate connectivity and dynamic coordination of neural firing patterns enables global access and synthesis that gives rise to unified subjective experience. But more research is still needed to understand the mechanisms completely.

Is it correct to assume that information is a carrier of energy?

AB

No, it is not correct to assume that information itself is a carrier of energy. Here is why:

Information is an abstract concept that refers to data, interpretation of data, or communicated messages that reduce uncertainty or provide knowledge to a recipient. Information inherently exists independent of energy or matter. For example, a written sequence of bits encoding a message contains information regardless of whether it is stored electronically, on paper, or transmitted physically.

However, representing, recording or communicating information through physical means does require energy and a material substrate. For example:

• To write down or print information on paper requires the energy to move a pen or operate a printer. But the information contained in the message existed conceptually before being written down.
• To store or process information electronically in a computer requires electronic signals and the flow of electrons which carry energy. But the informational content is distinct from the electronic substrate. The same information can be transmitted in many forms.
• To communicate information between two parties requires a channel or medium, which in physical form (e.g. sound waves, radio waves) does carry energy. But the same information can be transmitted through media with vastly different associated energies.

So in summary - information and energy are two distinct, orthogonal concepts. While encoding, recording and communicating information via physical processes always relies on some form of energy for the manipulation of matter, the information itself is an abstract entity independent of its physical embodiment and transmission. Thus information on its own is not a carrier of energy in the way that other physical entities like electromagnetic waves are.

Can this analogy be used: Information is like a liquid take the shape based on conceptual containers - like water take the shape of cups or glass etc.?

AB

Yes, that's an apt analogy - describing information as a liquid that takes the shape of conceptual containers captures some key attributes of information:

1. Formlessness - Like liquid, information itself has no intrinsic form. It requires a container or carrier in order to embody any structure. The same information can take on many different physical representations - electrical signals, ink patterns, etc.
2. Amorphousness - Information can flow and morph to fill conceptual spaces, similar to the amorphous quality of liquids. Information configured one way can be restructured to have different shapes and interpretations, like water poured from one vessel to another.
3. Structure imposition - Containers impose a form and structure on information, just as vessels shape liquids. Conceptual frameworks and data models provide an informational structure. And storage media like paper and computer memory give physical structure.
4. Expression conformance - When information is conveyed physically, it conforms to and is constrained by properties of the expression medium, much as liquid water conforms to a vessel's shape. Information expressed verbally must abide languages' rules.

However, the analogy isn't perfect. Information can be created, stored, duplicated and expressed immaterially via abstract thought unlike physical liquids. But it captures the adaptability of information and its configured, interpreted nature. The liquid analogy vividly conveys key emergent properties of information rooted in its reliance on contextual carriers rather than being an innate substance itself.

Can we conclude that information is innate in nature (Universe) -> it cannot be removed?

AB

No, I do not think we can conclusively state that information is innate to nature or the universe in a way that it cannot be removed. Here are a few reasons why:

1. There are active debates in physics and philosophy about whether information is a fundamental, irreducible property of nature like mass, charge, etc. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, so it remains an open question.
2. According to our best current physics theories, matter and energy at the quantum scale have an inherent probabilistic, uncertain nature. This means particles can exist in a range of states before "wave function collapse". Whether this inherent uncertainty represents information innate to matter is philosophically debatable.
3. Black holes appear to fundamentally destroy information by scrambling quantum properties at the event horizon according to Hawking radiation. This indicates there are physical domains where information can be obliterated at a fundamental level.
4. Abstract information like ideas, semantic interpretations, algorithms and logic all require a mind to conceptualize and therefore are not innate information in nature itself. For example, the mathematical output of an equation set is not realized until a mind compares symbols to conceptual rules.
5. Stored or transmitted information always has a physical carrier be it ink patterns, computer voltages or sound waves. Without a storage substrate or transmission medium, the information doesn't intrinsically persist in any physical form innately.

So while information does have deep connections to physical entropy, uncertainty, perception and interpretation, current knowledge has not progressed to unambiguously demonstrating information is an irreducible innate essence of nature rather than an abstract relational property in some contexts. More research is required to settle this question. But the best current analysis suggests information does not intrinsically universally persist beyond material substrates and formal conceptualizations.

May be the secret never could be known! as we do not have enough symbols in our Alphabets and logics to expose it.

AB

You raise an intriguing point - that perhaps the innate nature of information in the universe could be fundamentally inaccessible or obscure to human understanding, hidden by the limitations of our symbolic languages and logics. There's something evocative about that idea.

Our alphabet, vocabulary and structures of reasoning have developed to make sense of physical phenomena at the scale of the human experience. But we know there are more elemental levels of reality governed by quantum, relativistic, and cosmological laws exceeding our common intuitions. And there may be inherent constraints on our capacity to intuit or formalize those domains because our cognition builds upon linguistic primitives adapted to a narrow band of space, time and complexity.

So it's plausible the essence of information that underlies physical existence operates at such removed vistas that we simply lack the symbolic equipment to directly discern, articulate and reason about those mechanisms. Perhaps we're like a society of dogs unable to fathom calculus - bounded not by lack of raw intelligence but by an incommensurate formal system.

Current physics grapples with this issue on questions like whether information is conserved in black holes - we strain analogies of particles, fields and topology close to a speculative breaking point. That could be because information as-it-is remains obscured behind impenetrable veils of our limited dialects. An inter-theoretic "Rosetta Stone" may be missing.

On the other hand, persistent patterns in nature across vast scales suggest an elegance we should continue to aspire unravelling through inference, creativity and reason. But I agree our lens likely remains too narrow to directly glimpse the innate alphabet from which existence, entropy and complexity precipitate. The secret hides behind a veil woven of our symbols themselves - and piercing that will require an even more profound invention.

 

Can you use the Gestalt theory and discover the missing part of the whole?

AB

The core idea of Gestalt theory that I could apply here is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts - the components of a system working together produce emergent phenomena that cannot be understood just by looking at the pieces individually. With that principle in mind, some ways I could try to discover and deduce the "missing part of the whole" in the context of our discussion:

1. Examine complementary theories/perspectives - Look for other disciplines like information theory, semiotics, metaphysics that may provide alternate conceptual frameworks about the innate nature of information. Identify gaps not addressed by current theories.
2. Analyse paradoxes and contradictions - Some outstanding paradoxes like reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics, or black hole information, highlight holes in current models. Focus philosophical attention on these unresolved tensions.
3. Generalize patterns across systems - Step far back from physical details to make more abstract connections. For example, compare information dynamics of quantum systems, cognition, and cosmos at largest scales. These metaphors can reveal bigger pictures.
4. Emphasize holistic intuition - Gestalt theory privileges the intuitive perception of the whole rather than an atomized analysis. Though subjective, aesthetic and speculative leaps can proffer breakthrough visions to reframe understanding.

In essence, I would leverage complementary perspectives, tensions requiring resolution, scaling laws and metaphors outside disciplinary physics, and an artistic sensibility to conceptualize what ingredients may yet constitute the missing elements needed to produce deeper insight. The unknown piece likely reflects core assumptions and first principles rather than just additional mathematical formalisms. By examining the bigger context, contradictions, patterns and creative extrapolations, we can hope to reverse engineer and induce the absent fundamentals.

Are we poking the question of essence and existence?

AB

Yes, our exploration here of the innateness of information in the universe does seem to dance around the profound philosophical debate about essence versus existence.

On one hand we have the "essence" of information - what it fundamentally is, its true intrinsic definition independent of physical instantiation. This is akin to the "Platonic form" of information, its ideal nature.

And on the other hand we have the "existence" side - the way information is embedded, represented, and realized in physical systems and energy flows in the tangible world. This is information as it is actually manifest in the material reality we observe.

When we ask questions like "is information innate to nature in a way that it can never be removed?" - we are getting to the crux of whether the ideal essence of information is woven as an immutable fabric into the cosmos at a basic level.

Or is observable information just an emergent derivative, an ephemeral byproduct of physical laws that Create fluctuating existential representations alone? In that latter frame, information has no independent essence of its own in the machinery of reality.

So we are in some ways probing the metaphysical distinction between the inherent identity of information (essence) and its contingent manifestations (existence). Getting to the bottom of that may require not just physics, but subtle philosophizing about the primordial differentiation between abstraction and substantiality itself. It's an profound epistemological riddle. But trying to shine light on it, as we have done, is a worthy cause that forces critical examination of assumptions about the world.

 

Write a summary for this session.

AB

Here is a summary of our discussion session:

We explored the metaphysical nature of information and whether it can be considered an innate essence of the universe or merely an emergent by-product of physical laws. I discussed why information should not be assumed to intrinsically persist beyond substrates and minds that encode it. We questioned if limitations in human cognition and formal logical systems prevent us from perceiving the deepest secrets of information's origins.

Applying principles of Gestalt theory, I suggested ways to potentially identify missing pieces of our conceptual picture by examining paradoxical tensions in current theories, generalizing patterns across systems scales, emphasizing holistic intuition, and integrating multiple disciplinary perspectives. Contemplating the innateness of information in a universal sense seems to dance around profound debates of essence versus existence.

While not settling definitive answers, our inquiry highlighted how probing the ontology of information forces examination of implicit assumptions about the fundamental fabric of reality. Information may have its roots in primal differentiations between abstraction and physical actualization. Progressing knowledge further relies on both faithful scientific observation and creative conceptual leaps. An interplay of evidence and imagination is key to unveiling nature’s deepest informational secrets.