What kind of thing is the mind? A sound deductive argument

If a function is fulfilled then it is complete/period!
For instance, your previous post is now complete.

Your contextual understanding of complete is not.

My religiosity is perceptual system that allows for more contextual information to be used than an atheistic system because it eliminates no information from the system except spontaneous generation of complexity without intelligence (Which is logical since it has never been witnessed or replicated). I accept all the information and contextual systems has that the universe has to logically offer. Do you?

Q. Is this speck of dirt on my window 'information' ?

The ONLY answer of 'yes' to that depends on my relationship with that observation in the context of my relationships with ,say, whoever cleans my windows.

Now if you can understand that simple example of how 'information' is only and always relative to the needs of an observer, you might see why your verbiage about information is vacuous, unless you invent a 'mythical observer of all' who you decide to call 'God'.

...if said speck of dirt results for some reason in the breaking of your window you will turn around and recognize its existence a posteriori...the information of said speck operated before you found any meaning in it!

No. That argument invents a hypothetical 'a posteori observer' in order to satisfy the requirements of an 'information' concept. As in plane crash investigations, 'minor' aberrations never noticed prior to a crash become 'informational' with respect to future prevention.

...I think you didn't get the point...WHAT broke the glass?

It doesn't matter 'what'. The only way that 'such specks' could be 'informational' in your case would be if later they were deemed indicative of some 'cause of likely breakage'. The point that you don't seem to get is that I as the observer have complete jurisdiction over the 'information' such a speck has. I might, for example, be afraid of a a military inspection, or perhaps I have problem with bird droppings etc, etc, .....The observer is the one being 'informed'.

..oh no, we clearly disagree on that, everything informs everything else!

Your POV on this regard, as minds being the creators of reality, requires minds build themselves from their own bootstraps before existing, a clear contradiction in terms...

...either minds exist coming to being out of the world around them, that is, come about from something else which itself is not a mind, or they can't create themselves out of thin air before they are.

I think I've made this point a couple of times previously but you always look the other way around without addressing the problem.

...if a speck of dust coming a thousand miles an hour hits your window while you are not looking, it will be noticed shortly after!

Anyway Fresco the talk boils down to languaging as what you call "mind" I call a "complex system" without free will, and awareness of information is looked at as just another layer of information transfer between systems. The coinage "World" intends to focus on the plurality of these systems including minds. Your view on the contrary, as it binds the mind at the root, is in fact and perhaps to your surprise, a deistic interpretation of the world, one just needs to Ocaam Razor your reasoning to get the extra step missing in your Cosmogony.

I agree it boils down to 'languaging'. But since 'deism' is also just a bit of languaging ( as indeed is 'make', 'complex' and 'free will') we are pimarily engaged in a bit of social dancing, in which the 'is-ness' of any word is being disputed. The only point of agreement between us might be that we are animals with an enhanced, yet limited, ability to predict and control our perceived 'world,' largely via our language. Asking about 'origins' or 'causes' is merely a language mode employed in aspects of what we call 'understanding'' but which is inappropriate for investigating itself. Such attempts are as futile as asking 'what was prior to the Big Bang' since the word 'time' is undefined in that hypothetical scenario. That point underpins recent philosophical oneliners about language. such as....
Meaning is usage (Wittgenstein} ...No description is any closer to 'reality' than any other (Nietzsce)....Every assertion implies its negation (Derrida).

Following Wittgenstein's point, we have previously discussed your resticted usage of words like 'information' and 'computing' to a sub-set which departs from original usage of such terms prior to a machine age. We have also touched on the spectacular failure of machine modelling especially when used to model cognition. Your continuous reliance on such limited models is the basis of our perptual dancing.

brianjakub:

fresco:

Physical existence (the matter of the universe) is energy stored in patterns. All of matter is energy stored in standing waves called atoms. As far as we know, (and it is widely accepted by most in the scientific community) every individual isotope (which is determined by an isotopes atomic weight) of every atom is the same as every other atom of the same isotope everywhere in the universe (and we now organize them in the periodic table). That energy is stored in waves and those waves have always had frequencies (and those frequencies can be used to identify the type of atom someone is observing) ever since matter existed. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume time is a fundamental emergent property of any universe that contains matter.


Therefore, since the patterns that we intelligently recorded in the periodic table is information, I think it is logical to assume that it existed as information in the distant past before man's intelligence existed. And, since the only thing that changed is the new format introduced by man and not the information that was originally recorded in the format we recognize today as matter, is widely accepted by lay people and scientists alike to have existed long before man existed, why is my question meaningless?

Especially since the atoms that are contained in the speck on your windshield is made up of atoms and that speck would not exist or be recognized by you as a speck if the patterns had not existed when the atoms in that speck came in to existence long before any man ever existed.



I would argue that current models like the Big Bang are due to revision because they don't follow an observed and recognized pattern that has been observed unbroken for thousands of years. And that pattern is:

Like the information recognized and recorded in the format of the periodic table had to be recognized and created by an intelligent being, the information stored in the format we now recognize as matter had to be recognized and created by an intelligent being also. But, unlike the format of the periodic table which can be stored on a single piece of paper with limited physical and mental capabilities, the information stored in all the patterns contained in all the atoms of the universe required an intelligent being with capabilities much greater in scope and ability than our own and, that intelligence must have existed in the very ancient past some time before the Big Bang and possibly even before time emerged as an emergent property of matter.

Where am I wrong in my logic in making this assumption?

Let me simulate a fresco answer after 10 years of hearing him on this issue I think I can play him well...

the wording "existed" only makes sense in the context of social dabbling regarding human attempts at prediction and control. The convenient use of "isness" to refer to the "world" is yet another attempt of the mind to cope with what works through heuristic languaging among social pears...

..that said your ontological appeal to God is just as bad...you put mind over information which is absurd.
"God" is a rock!

It seems logical to me. Why do you think it is absurd?

Because that which is everything cannot change anything!

I hereby nominate you as my official mouthpiece !

Parroting I will my dear professor!

Unless that which was and is everything, just happens to be the first Idea (God the Father) that had as part of itself the ability to store that original idea as information the physical universe we live in and observe. And, that ability to create a universe, is similar to our ability to create new information and store it in matter, which are the characteristics of a person. Which means, it is a logical to assume that pattern holds true into the ancient past (because scientists do assume that the laws of physics apply everywhere all the time in the physical universe except inside a black hole). So, it is logical to assume that a person thought up the universe as an idea and then stored that idea in everything we view as matter. And, if that person is like us that person created the information to share with other persons for a purpose. (And I think, that ability is a person that we can know as the Living Word That eventually entered that physical universe as the person history records as Jesus).

Therefore, I think a mind that can understand a sound deductive argument can understand this line of reasoning. Which, leads one to conclude that the information stored in the universe (and our bodies with its ability to reason and create) reveals that there is an author to that information with personal attributes similar to ours but physical attributes and capabilities that are much greater.

Are social pears more juicy than antisocial ones? ;-)

and fresco. Where am I wrong in my previous post by reasoning that using a more complete philosophical view than yours by including intelligence as a possibility instead of excluding it because the patterns suggest it.