ARE THE COSMOS, INTERNET & YOUR iPHONE CONSCIOUS? (“Consciousness” via Information Science) Marcus Abundis1 INTRODUCTION This essay explores current science (i.e., the standard model in physics, the periodic table, etc.) in relation to consciousness. It develops a “bridge” to join these disparate topics by positing a meaningful information science, or natural (core) informatics. It shows that at least three types of informational meaning exist, thus using type theory to re-frames classic conflicts that often arise across those domains (12 pages: 5,400 words).
Humanity is distinct in cultivating an adaptive science beyond the skills of other species. Most successful of these informational strategies are: the standard model, the periodic table, genetics, and Darwinism. Known worldwide, they have broad acceptance and utility. Also, science is regularly buttressed by serial discovery and the adoption of new ideas. Despite these gains, however, major explanatory gaps persist beyond classic scientific thought. I examine two of these gaps: 1) questions of consciousness, and 2) the nature of information, in relation to science. Through information analysis, this paper posits a Shannon-Weaver (1949) “theory of meaning” to address those gaps. It presents information science, or natural informatics, as a way to jointly assess science, consciousness, and more broadly, informational wherewithal. MODEL DEVELOPMENT This analysis begins with one evident aspect (science), and two more obscure elements (information and consciousness). While “fixed” science is fairly well known, less well known are its voids. For example, the standard model in physics is partial, as it excludes gravity and dark matter/energy; moreover, new insights on epigenetic effects cloud prior notions of DNA. These and other half-accomplished facets mean that science offers interim models to be improved upon. In line with such interim scientific models, similar views of consciousness and information are needed to initiate this analysis. Those interim models will be refined later, as is typical of any scientific endeavor. Thus, to start, consciousness is often labeled as “personal experience,” but this definition is too vague to be useful (Chalmers, 1996, p. 4). More specific terms are rare since a claimed Hard Problem supposedly prohibits more precise views. But a Hard Problem now seems doubtful (Abundis, 2014). Thus, an alternate framing of consciousness as personal experience is suggested, namely: An operating schema for engaging in spontaneous energy-matter exchanges upon an evolutionary landscape. (Abundis, 2009) This language echoes the noted scientific models, as similar terms can broadly frame any of those models. While modern science has long surpassed such basic concepts, these terms, by placing science and consciousness on roughly shared ground, enable a comparative analysis.
1
Organizational Behavior (GFTP), Graduate School of Business, Stanford University (March 2011).
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
1
Next, defining information seems harder than defining consciousness. Presumably information
entails all of science and much more. It includes dance, body language, music, emotions, and pheromones; indeed, a long list unfolds if we consider all rational and irrational roles. If we look past purely human realms, the list explodes. But this study ultimately targets “consciousness in relation to science,” so a narrowly defined view is first used, which facilitates an analysis. Narrowly defined information is typical of the noted models. The standard model, the periodic table, DNA, and Darwinism are meaningful due to their exactness. They detail functional values and roles even as partial models. Conversely, the functional significance of art, pheromones, etc. is unclear. Further, scientific roles are materially direct, arising reflexively. Humanity does not literally cause science to occur (as it does with art, music, etc.). Science simply presents nature interpreted and recorded by humanity, to the best of its ability. Meaningful informational models commonly appear as data tables that highlight specific facets, as with a periodic table. Such tables show discrete data elements, in a specified order, to denote a functional value or role. Those tables are often called metadata, a term that is used herein to indicate any narrowly defined “meaningful informational model.” Next, a more exact framing of science in relation to information is needed. Once “metadata logic for science” is detailed, the same will be applied to consciousness. Lastly, from the resulting general “informational core” perspective we will answer the question posed in the paper’s title. Scientific Domains & Metadata (core) Logic First, it must be clear that this study uses science as a philosophic base – no outré view is posited. But this does not mean science as a singular object. Differences between scientific domains are explicit and must not be blurred. Still, a metadata bridge across domains is needed to advance this analysis. That bridge must hold scientific domains apart, while giving a cohesive (continuous) account of explicit differences. The bridge developed herein consists namely of a domain’s “operative level” and “referential base,” and frames a core logic that bridges those scientific domains. This view is detailed using the following four cases, as follows: • The standard model in physics has an operative level that mainly uses weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. Physics names four fundamental interactions (or forces): weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetic. The standard model references base particles that join to form atomic nuclei via weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces – operative roles that bind reality as we sense it. Strong interactions operate at two levels, joining particles to create protons and neutrons, and then binding protons with neutrons as atomic nuclei. Weak interactions cause the decay of protons and neutrons, where protons turn to neutrons and the reverse (beta decay). The end result of this reflexive proton-neutron binding and balancing is 118 uniquely matched proton-neutron groups that serve as elemental atomic nuclei. Systemic complexity thus arises as a number of known material (fixed atomic) variants, further affording a next operative level. This brief narrative omits many known details. But exploring that level of detail is not the goal, which is, rather, to name core informational roles across diverse scientific domains. Those roles August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
2
are then used to define a metadata bridge. With this necessarily simplistic “core view” in mind, I return to the analysis. • The periodic table’s (next) operative level employs electromagnetic force. Typical proton and neutron pairings (one neutron per proton, referential base) have a like number of electrons. But electromagnetic variants within the 118 paired types (“fixed” elements) yield shifts. For example, an unequal number of electrons or neutrons (base = protons) present an imbalance. Imbalances are called +/- ions for electron variants and isotopes for neutron variants. Reflexive resolution of electromagnetic imbalances yields three molecular bonds: ionic, covalent, and metallic. The end result of this atomic binding and balancing (spontaneous atomic recombination) is a range of molecular groups, each with distinct operative traits. “Molecules” thus convey a next operative level, where the entailed complexity grows. A large number of molecules are now possible, many that are not foreseeable. For example, roughly 1060 – 10180 unique medium sized molecules are thought to be possible (Aspuru-Guzik, 2015). As such, indefinite systemic novelty now arises. Before I proceed further, I must clarify the non-adaptive (direct, reflexive) material cases named above, and the adaptive (indirect) behavior cases detailed below. – In non-adaptive (direct) cases the elements involved perform in a regular manner. Thus, an oxygen atom performs consistently in combining with other atoms. Also, a rubber ball thrown against a wall performs reliably. That reliability guides us in grasping if we confront an oxygen atom, a rubber ball, or a [fill in the blank] – or what I call “prime differences.” – Alternately, adaptive (indirect) cases exist where quasi-regular behaviors arise. For example, each cat or bird, if thrown against a wall, behaves in a like-but-distinct manner. This adaptive difference marks some behaviors as more gainful than others – or “complex differences.” The same cannot be said of one oxygen atom compared to another oxygen atom. With non-adaptive and adaptive roles now now detailed as marking “two meaningful types,” I continue the analysis: • Genetic code has an operative level implicating electromagnetic force, with a twist. Genetics indicate life, but no “theory of biology” exists to explain life’s arrival. An explanatory gap arises, compared to more-direct roles in the standard model and the periodic table. This gap implies a “fifth fundamental force,” or some other as-yet-unseen trait. But this means we cannot simply label this interaction as “electromagnetic” since it entails more. I thus call it core sentience, akin to Dawkins’s (2006) “selfish gene.” Despite this imprecise framing, some suppositions are still possible for this operative level. We know genetic code exists reflexively, often as chromatid pairs within cells. Chromosome and code differences exist between species, marking a referential base for a species’s anatomy and physiology (phenotype). Some code entails protein production, while other code does not, as an epigenetic role. The code is organized in lateral-base pairs (double helix), which present verticaltriplet codons. Triplet codons facilitate the assembly of molecules into 20 amino acid types that then recombine as proteins. The molecular binding and balancing of amino acids into proteins is the end result. Complexity now expands via genetic recombination, later inflated further via random mutation. Systemic novelty is thus functionally affirmed, earlier as limited-but-growing atomic and molecular recombination, but now greatly enlarged via genetic recombination and mutations. August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
3
Finally, even if electromagnetic force is later shown to be necessary and sufficient for causing life, the character of the referential base has changed. Prior particle referents (protons, neutrons, electrons, and atoms) entail reflexive (direct material) values and roles. But the referent locality now shifts. DNA is a type of special-purpose memory of indirect or condensed referential values (code) that a larger system uses to set operative roles. Such indirect coded references also typify metadata (the standard model, the periodic table, etc.), even when modeling direct material roles. How or why an indirect referential base would arise is unknown and presents a vital issue. Also, this appearance of condensed code implies proof of a type of organizing intelligence (e.g., a selfish gene), beyond more simple organizing principles evident at atomic and molecular levels. • Darwinism, which has an operative level of agent survival or material resilience, is the highest operative role. Only resilient agents hold a discernible identity. But another explanatory gap arises: resilient agency is now the base, but can “resilience” be exactly defined or located? What are its referents? And how does resilient behavior arise? Does a “fifth force” drive all behavior? Is behavior reflexive (based on genetically coded instincts) or autonomous (from the psyche)? Is “free will” possible, and what does it mean? These issues implicate questions of consciousness. Labeling this vague operative level selection dynamics, I assert that suppositions are still possible for this unsettled state. Darwinian predator-prey roles, within environs, reflexively yield niche formation. Each role, which can be typified by food/energy chains, pyramids or webs, presents a referential base. Chains, pyramids, and webs map causal relations on an evolutionary landscape. Here, the whole chain/web is the most apt reference. Any discrete “link” within a diffuse chain (diffuse-discrete role) may affect the end result of an agent’s demise or survival (selection). This is true whether an agent is seen as a genotype or a phenotype. Also, each energy-matter interaction in a chain/ web evokes various forms of energy (solar radiation, weather, mates, rivals, disease, etc.). Each interaction thus affords discrete functional gains and losses (efficiencies and inefficiencies) that build, with sexual maturity, to an aggregate or biographic reproductive role. Lastly, each chain (as one vector) marks a single lineage entwined with others, inter-actively forming a larger diffuse evolutionary tree. Figure 1: Trans-Disciplinary Informational Tree – core logic. Scientific domains (left) are shown in a explanatory order (bottom-to-top, simple-to-complex). This tree shows the emergence of systemic novelty (branching), which implies unforeseen informational shifts due to happenstance (selection dynamics). Operative levels are shown on the left and referential bases are given on the right.
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
4
This Darwinian view marks a complex informational vista (Figures 1 & 2). First, the referent locale shifts again, now lying across an entire landscape (diffuse, aggregate/biographic referent). This differs from a discrete locale (direct material referents) in the standard model and periodic tables, and the condensed locale (indirect, coded referent) of DNA. Second, the role of energy shifts. Four fundamental forces do not adequately address nature’s selection dynamics (Abundis, 2015). This leaves a “fifth force,” or quantum mechanics, or [who knows?] to explain life’s emergence and ensuing selection dynamics. Alternately, beyond four forces, 16 classic forms of energy (e.g., kinetic, potential, mechanical, wave, etc.) imply that many sub-operative roles actually drive natural selection. Darwinism thus entails many force-and-material variants that define risk and opportunity for an agent. Growing force-and-material variation (generic entropy) enlarges the systemic novelty (happenstance) that drives the selection of agent roles. Figure 2: Logical Types – memory locale. Following type theory, three innate system types imply that three types of memory/referents exist, which together must meaningfully contend with growing entropic complexity.
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
5
Due to happenstance, we must accept evolutionary theory, not as an exact account of all agent vectors, in every referential detail, but as a compelling meta-landscape. Darwinism succeeds due to its high intuitive-descriptive appeal, but where much is inexactly explained. Alternately, a mature science would include a full description and explanation of all causal details. Finally, as selection dynamics entail many life stages, naming one causal force is unlikely. More likely is naming a core logic across operative roles, as attempted in this paper. Still, Darwinism’s prominence stresses the power of good intuitive-descriptive models. Also, if we see “modeling as a discipline,” an intuitive fit is needed to attempt any mathematical proof or other test. Without some “initial fit” there is nothing to test, prove, or improve. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – Modeling Consciousness via Core Logic This analysis shows informational roles that describe science across diverse domains – a core metadata logic for science. Now we see how this logic applies to consciousness as an operative level. For clarity, this core metadata logic is restated here as: 1. Operative Level: an energy input applied to a referential base, causing recombination, which yields an end result. a) Energy Input: any of four fundamental forces in physics. Also included are 16 classic forms of energy, any of which help to define an operative level. b) Referential Base: material elements (referents) evident in realizing an end result. Each referent has distinct operative traits, along with a locality (discrete/direct, condensed/ indirect, or diffuse/diverse), that perform in an unbroken manner (Bateson’s [1979] necessary unity). This referential base marks an initial objective state. c) Recombination: additive and subtractive energetic acts in a referential base that produce novel elements (end result). A vital binding and balancing process as an in-form-ative event, or meaningful information. d) End Result: recurrent resilient/residual material elements, values, and roles (“traits”) as outputs of recombination. They convey an ensuing subjective state, or meaningfully informed functioning roles. 2. Material Variation: elements in an end result set (1d) versus elements in a referential base (1b). For example, the standard model has few material variants (a fine-tuned universe), and Darwinism suggests maximal material variants. Material variation also marks signal entropy and natural dissipative forces (Shannon’s [1948] signal and noise), and “entropic velocity” or the rate of simple-to-complex shifts. Material variation thus frames a universal information metric (aka generic entropy). These terms apply to all informational roles and fill two needs. First, they detail an informational model beyond “metadata.” Second, they detail a sense of subjectivity or personal experience (aka consciousness). As such, a trans-disciplinary (science-information-consciousness) bridge is now inferred. To next analyze “consciousness as an operative level,” I assert consciousness is reflexive, as is science. This names a shared operative trait. Humanity does not cause its own means of thinking to arise, even if we often refine our ways of thinking. This is also true of science: we do not cause science to occur, but we often refine our scientific views. Next, naming a conscious operative level requires a sense of the force behind consciousness. Thus, I consider its energy input. August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
6
Energy Input – re operative level If we take a cursory view of human consciousness (from above) as: A schema for energy-matter exchanges upon an evolutionary landscape, nothing here names an operative force. Most studies infer an electromagnetic role in the human brain, as cellular “action potentials” or ion transfers. This view is fortified by estimates that, while a brain entails only two percent of human body mass, it uses 20% of the body’s caloric input and 15% of the cardiac output. But little is proven here beyond that “something happens” in the brain. Our best measurements, via fMRI, only show regional activity. A local force causing named functions is not shown, as needed for a meaningful model. In terms of information theory, signal-and-noise (entropic) variants are indistinct. Also, study of the brain’s discrete energy-signals seems unlikely. Roughly 100,000 neurons fill one cubic millimeter, the smallest view possible with fMRI (Johnston & Parens, 2014, p. S3). This offers poor resolution of brain activity. If we then use invasive tools to improve signal measurement, we risk altering what we hope to measure. Mechanically probing minute neural facets incites noise and can injure a subject (observer effect). Finally, fMRIs and similar tools offer no insight into a “fifth (or other) force” needed to resolve a key overarching gap – the cause[s] of life. Alternately, practical energy input points to the metabolite creation, elimination, and sentience that drive homeostasis. Discrete forces causing named functions now arise; meaningful entropic (signal-and-noise) roles are evident. Also, discrete sub-operative (sensory) foci accommodate diffuse Darwinian events and 16 forms of energy. But, as noted before, diffuse traits are complex and can make analysis difficult (re happenstance). Also, the brain’s central role cannot be left out. Thus, three facets: diffuse (Darwinian environs), discrete (sensory roles), and condensed genomics/cerebration must entropically or energetically cohere for a unified personal experience to arise. This coherence (entropic/empiric coordination) is presumably realized via experiential cerebration, conscious and sub-conscious. Empiric-energy (input) coordination marks three core issues for consciousness as an operative level: 1. Energy coherence is practical adaptation. All agents must abide natural dissipative forces (noise) in the cosmos, a diffuse-to-condensed (death versus life) role. Energy-as-signal coherence means survival, whereas energy-as-noise (decoherence) implies death. Energetic coordination thus proves an agent’s adaptive resilience and affords a discernible (subjective) identity. 2. Diffuse-to-condensed life implies a compound locale for consciousness. Adaptation first occurs via DNA’s epigenetic (direct material) role. But if dissipative forces grow beyond DNA’s fragile tolerances, a new adaptive scheme is needed. First, that condensed DNA must evolve new discrete force sensors that issue reports. Next, those diffuse-discrete neural reports must be coordinated by a new condensed process, a brain. Thus, sentience implies a compound diffuse-discrete & new condensed locale. Diffuse-discrete modules (sensors) lessen the need for more-complex DNA, and improve force acuity and tolerance (DNA
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
7
isolation). Also, these modules offer the redundancy needed for gradual evolution to occur. One module holds constant while adjacent modules evolve. Diverse modules (diffuse, discrete, and condensed) afford evolving complex multi-faceted adaptation as a diffusediscrete & condensed locale. 3. A binding problem exists. Diffuse, discrete, and condensed roles in one system present a practical issue of how their reports are differentiated and joined. This binding problem arose earlier as “energy-as-signal survival versus energy-as-noise death” (coordination). One way to resolve such functional binding problems is to name a suitable data table (metadata, code, logic, etc.). Binding-and-balancing in the scientific models depict such solutions: diffusediscrete roles (e.g., atomic types) are modeled via condensed tables (e.g., periodic order). Three referent classes are “bound together” and explanatory gaps are closed. But no such table presently exists for consciousness; we lack a detailed enough account of essential signals. Again, this is largely due to a too-big scale in our means of neural measurement. Referential Base – re operative level Next, to frame a referential base for consciousness similar issues arise. If the brain is, in fact, a condensed referential base for consciousness, we must see how its referents are situated. A gross cerebral anatomy and functioning are seen, but specific referential values that drive meaning are not clear. If we then explore neurons as a referential base we see over 100 neuron types, totaling nearly 86 billion neurons, and thousands of connections per neuron. But if we cannot see signals at a neuronal level (per above), modeling material referents here is also unlikely. Lastly, some researchers wonder if such referential values even exist (Johnston & Parens, 2014, p. S51), or if humanity is capable of grasping such referents (McGinn, 2012). A practical referential base for consciousness is memory. Such aggregated experiences echo Darwinism’s biographic role. As further examples: if we “forget” to eat or drink, or to feel pain, we die. Homeostasis requires regulatory memory (body temperature = 98.6F). A computer’s disk memory often holds data, where the price of its loss can surpass the computer’s cost. Memory also typifies metadata as durably encoded functional traits. Lastly, if memory of any type ever decoheres, materially or energetically, its value-as-meaning is lost. But classifying memory is an unsettled area. Science defines memory as: encoding, storage, and retrieval of data (or experiences). Psychology frames memory in two parts: implicit and explicit. Implicit memory has procedural, priming, and perceptual facets; explicit memory has semantic, episodic, and autobiographic roles (Wenzl, 2011). This dualistic-triune view of memory mirrors DNA’s base-pairs and triplet-codons. While we have a crude sense of DNA’s coded referents that convey life, we have no idea of the brain’s coded referents that convey mind. This “coding gap” revisits the binding problem (above) and, in turn, limits what we can say about data storage and retrieval, or about consciousness as a personal experience. Despite this coding gap, we often “feel” memory, as named above. We sense implicit and explicit roles. But does this suitably describe or explain consciousness? Is the level of proof, for example, at least equal to that of Darwinism? More analysis is needed to answer this question.
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
8
Recombination & End Result – re operative level An end result noted above is that “humanity . . . cultivates an adaptive science beyond . . . other species.” This adaptive agency arises as conscious recombination (e.g., designing a shelter). To start, nature is highly recombinant and sets a dissipative (force) threshold that all agents must abide. When confronted by entropic events, an agent must give a suitable entropic/adaptive reply. For example, science & engineering show types of complex recombinant adaptivity. But implicit and explicit memory, or memory as encoding, storage, and retrieval, are silent on recombination. Memory without recombination has no adaptive (generative entropic) value. Set memory affords limited (direct) responses that work well for limited entropic stimuli. But the “Darwinian proof” called for above requires adaptive memory. Thus, current notions of memory cannot explain or describe conscious recombination (personal creativity) – another explanatory gap arises. For better or worse, recombinant memory is psycho-logical. Creative recombination is often seen derisively, traced to a subconscious mind. But this irrational mind, given recombinant demands, is a rational irrationality. It stirs behavioral-cognitive plasticity; it is “the only logical operation [to convey a] new idea” (Peirce, CP 5.172) by making trial-and-error conduct possible. Trialand-error then names functional traits for otherwise proto-rational roles. Adaptive gains and losses from those proto/neo-rational exploits can later aggregate as a Darwinian biography – or a resiliently encoded subjective identity – that includes building a shelter. Alternately, some may claim creativity is genetically set. But this defies a precedent of new traits arising as successively complex roles (e.g., science & engineering). It also implies genetics is the most meaningful role possible, beyond adaptive phenotypes and Darwinism. But Darwinian roles were already detailed above as being more robust than genomic adaptation. Lastly, this genetic bias means “created things” – like plans for a Boeing 747 (or any other invention) – lie within genetic code. But the complexity needed to sustain such a vast, all-encompassing, innovative genetic role seems unlikely. Practically speaking, depth, breadth, and recombination of memory drives phenotypic creativity (behavioral adaptivity). To say more is difficult. First, the inputs filling memory (perceptions and context) are diverse – not just between humans and other species, but also among humans. Fated happenstance unavoidably skews agent experience. Second, recombinant tendencies between humans and other species, and among humans vary greatly. The subjectivity of what is and is not art, invention, good research, etc., is broad. Third, moral and political debates cloud creativity. For example, infamously, humans can behave like a self-predatory species. Conflicts over who does and does not merit key resources drive much of our society and creative (“idle”) endeavors. In fact, such self-predation suggests a formidable style of “pro-active versus natural” selection. More study of phenotypic creativity is important, but that exceeds this paper’s goals. Also, the idea of examining subconscious complexes, archetypes, and shadows alarms some people. For now, I merely assert that, to model a true conscious operative level, an end result of adaptive creativity must be addressed. Currently, few models exist (Abundis, 2016). CONCLUSION
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
9
To conclude this study, two tasks remain: 1) to frame consciousness from a scientific view, and 2) to answer the original question in the paper’s title. First, it must be clear, placing consciousness alongside the scientific models is straightforward. A presumption of reflexive existence situates consciousness among those models. Nothing exists to deny a natural origin, and nature is itself reflexive, as are the scientific models. This presumption also means an explanatory gap must still be answered. But reflexivity implies not-reflexive roles also exist, which are explored elsewhere (Abundis, 2015). Briefly, materially direct is reflexive (pro natura) and not-reflexive means adaptive (ab natura) – as a generative entropic role that defies dissipative force. Lastly, consciousness is said to mediate between DNA and Darwinism, via diffuse-discrete reports & condensed coordination (homeostasis). This infers causal roles of: the standard model, the periodic table, DNA, consciousness, and Darwinism. Beyond this, little more can be said from a scientific or informational view. To answer “Are the Cosmos, the Internet, and your iPhone Conscious?” the same tools apply – reflexivity and locale. The cosmos is plainly reflexive, and the Internet and iPhone, as adaptive human inventions, are not-reflexive. Next, to see if a reflexive cosmos is conscious we see if it mediates anything, or has a diffuse-
discrete & condensed locale. The cosmos is all-inclusive, so there is nothing for it to adapt to or mediate between. It is more often seen as a self-organizing system of diffuse elements, akin to Darwinism. Astrophysicists estimate that over 170 billion galaxies lie scattered across 90-plus billion light years, for only 0.4% (condensed matter) of the cosmos. The remainder is 3.6% intergalactic gas, 73% undefined dark energy and 23% undefined dark matter (Ostriker & Steinhardt, 2003). This diffuseness makes a condensed cosmic role hard to see; no biographic memory or reporting
seems likely. Still, dark energy and dark matter do oddly imply a generative entropy: cosmic inflation accelerates (dissipation) while galaxies and their contents remain stable. But this diffuse & condensed role differs from the diffuse-discrete & condensed locale of consciousness. Lastly, too little is known about dark energy/matter to say more about a conscious cosmos. Next, to see how the Internet and iPhone are mistaken as being conscious the same tools apply. The devices are not-reflexive, but they entail a a diffuse-discrete & condensed (adaptive) locale. So how does that locale arise? Engineering (recombinant) trial-and-error infuses each device, a device does not invoke trial-and-error itself; trial-and-error precludes firm functioning. Instead, engineers imprint a pre-tested (selected) trial onto each device, through its design, production, marketing, and use. Those already refined devices produce no autonomous adaptive acts, but instead convey a type of pro-active selection. Also, a device needs a user to switch it on, enter data, download apps, music, pictures, and so on. Selected interactions make the device meaningful to a user, extending user adaptivity – a device is not innately meaningful or adaptive in itself, to itself. Meaningful interactions are even more evident when various individuals use identical devices in diverse selected roles. Gains afforded by “universal computers,” for example, may be mysterious to some, but that mystery runs afoul of Clarke’s (1973) third law of “magic technology.” Claiming that a device (or the cosmos) is August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
10
conscious (Lloyd, 2006; Koch, 2012) requires a vague notion of information, computation, and consciousness (Schmidhuber, 2006). That vagueness halts any chance of naming a meaningful informational model, compared to the more-precise scientific models noted above. This analysis began with one evident aspect (science), and two obscure elements (information and consciousness). But these disparate roles are now, hopefully, clarified and placed on roughly shared ground. The aim of this “universal view of information” (natural informatics) is to enable new analysis and gains in information technology, and human adaptivity. As a last note, it now seems possible to improve on the earlier definition of consciousness, to read as follows: A schema for energy-matter exchanges upon an evolutionary landscape, using recombinant condensed memories, as a Self-reflexive intelligence. This framing is not as reductive as it may seem. It entails happenstance (diverse dynamic events) and irrational (all recombinant) traits and roles, while Nature remains necessarily creative. REFERENCES 1. Abundis, M. (2009). Cracking code on human creativity. Vimeo.com [online]. Available at: < https://vimeo.com/10128327> [Accessed 1 July 2015]. 2. Abundis, M. (2014). The ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. Issuu.com [online]. Available at: <https://issuu.com/mabundis/docs/hardproblem> [Accessed 1 July 2015]. 3. Abundis, M. (2015). Selection dynamics as an origin of reason – causes of ‘information’. Issuu.com [online]. Available at: <https://issuu.com/mabundis/docs/lgcn.fin.4.15> [Accessed 1 December 2015]. 4. Abundis, M. (2016). Natural multi-state computing – engineering evolution: simple machines and beyond. Issuu.com [online]. Available at: <https://issuu.com/mabundis/docs/ multistate> [Accessed 1 February 2016]. 5. Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2015) Billions and Billions of Molecules: Molecular Material Discovery in the Age of Machine Learning, Google TechTalks May 12, 2015, Los Angeles, CA. [online]. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98wILB5sZ5w> [Accessed 10 April 2016]. 6. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: a necessary unity. New York, NY: Dutton. 7. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 8. Clarkes, A. (1973). “’Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination'" in the collection Profiles of the Future: An Enquiry into the Limits of the Possible (1962, rev. 1973), pp. 14, 21, 36. 9. Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
11
10. Johnston, J., & Parens, E. (2014). “Interpreting neuroimages: an introduction to the technology and its limits.” Hastings Center special report. March-April 2014, Vol. 44, Issue s2. [online] Available at: <http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/ SpecialReports/ Detail.aspx?id=6841> [Accessed 1 October 2015]. 11. Koch, C. (2012). Consciousness: confessions of a romantic reductionist. Boston, MA: MIT Press. 12. Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the universe: a quantum computer scientist takes on the cosmos. New York, NY: Knopf. 13. McGinn, C. (2012). “All machine and no ghost?,” New Statesman. 20 February 2012. [online] Available at: <http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2012/02/consciousness-mindbrain> [Accessed 1 October 2014]. 14. Ostriker, J. P., & Steinhardt, P. J. (2003). New light on dark matter. [online] Available at: <http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306402> [Accessed 1 October 2015]. 15. Peirce, C. S. (1958-1966). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 16. Schmidhuber, J. (2006) “The computational universe.” American Scientist, book review. July-August 2006, Vol. 94, No. 4, p. 1 [online] Available at: <http://www. americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-computational-universe> [Accessed 1 October 2015]. 17. Shannon, C. (1948). “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell System Technical Journal. July & October 1948, 27, pp. 379-423 & 623-656. 18. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). Advances in “a mathematical theory of communication”. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 19. Wenzl, B. (2011). Untitled. [online] Available at: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Memory.gif> [Accessed 1 October 2015].
August 15 2016, M. Abundis, +1-530.388.5576, +41-(0)62.844.2193, 55mrcs@gmail.com
12