From Gregory Chaitin at UFRJ:
In Chapter 8 of his 1996 Oxford University Press masterpiece The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers speculates on using information theory as the basis for a fundamental theory of consciousness. Building on his work, we attempt to flesh out an updated version of the Chalmers proposal by taking into account more recent developments including algorithmic information theory, quantum information theory, the holographic principle and the Bekenstein bound, and digital philosophy as sketched in two little-known monographs in Italian: Introduzione alla filosofia digitale and Bit Bang: La nascita della filosofia digitale
…
In the two decades since Chalmers published his panpsychism thesis that any physical system that processes information is conscious, it has become possible to put more meat on the bones of the Chalmers proposal. Unfortunately, it is possible to argue that as a consequence, the simplicity which was the principal argument in Chalmers’ favor has become somewhat diluted. Nevertheless, it remains straight-forward, at least in comparison with what is perhaps becoming its chief contender, the increasingly elaborate Tononi integrated information theory of consciousness [17, 18]. Note especially how much easier it is to measure consciousness according to Chalmers as opposed to the extreme computational difficulties of the Tononi proposal, which requires considering all possible partitions of a physical system. In conclusion, I believe that Chalmers panpsychism remains vigorous and stimulating, especially if taken in the context of digital philosophy, which attempts to build the world out of information and computation rather than matter and energy. More.
If we can “build the world out of information and computation rather than matter and energy,” will we not still face the question of how exactly they are integrated?
See also: Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself
Consciousness researcher: Objectivity is “cultural discrimination”
Human self-awareness without cerebral cortex
Are newborn babies really not conscious?
What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness
Roger Penrose: Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here. One can’t help wondering if this is suckerbait. Challenged, will Penrose retreat back to the safe little warren of nonsense theories about consciousness? A few are offered below, just to get you started, but we don’t especially recommend it. On the other hand, just for fun, start with, Claim: Science is afraid of animal consciousness. Why? Won’t crackpot theories work as well as they do for human consciousness? What’s different?
Aired on BBC: Consciousness no different than our ability to digest
Thomas Nagel: Daniel Dennett “maintaining a thesis at all costs” in Bacteria to Bach and Back
Physicist: Regrettably, materialism can’t explain mind
Split brain does NOT lead to split consciousness? What? After all the naturalist pop psych lectures we paid good money for at the U? Well, suckers r’ us.
Does the ability to “split” our brains help us understand consciousness? (Apparently not.)
What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness
Or else: Consciousness as a state of matter
Researcher: Never mind the “hard problem of consciousness”: The real one is… “Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind”
Searle on Consciousness “Emerging” from a Computer: “Miracles are always possible.”
Psychology Today: Latest new theory of consciousness A different one from the above.
Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us
Claim: Science is afraid of animal consciousness. Why? Won’t crackpot theories work as well as they do for human consciousness?
So then: Question: Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?
Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away
Science fictions series 4: Naturalism and the human mind
In real science, theories and formulas grow out of a long history of observations and measurements. We can’t observe or measure consciousness in anything except ourselves, so the only permissible theories and formulas relate to sleeping and anesthesia.
There’s still room for formulas about REM sleep, interrupted sleep, etc. Anesthetists seem to have a pretty good handle on necessary doses. Aside from those specialized areas, there’s no way to create theories on this subject.
Can information theory help us understand consciousness?
It depends… life is definitely “dependent on information”… it is what makes us who we are…alive beings able to process information..
Without information we wouldn’t be able to read this post and respond to it…
The “hard” question still remains; what makes us perceive or interpret information the way we do? Wrong or right? Pleasure or displeasure? Alive or dead? Happy or unhappy?
Laughable debates between distinguished academic personalities. Poor things. Spiritually dead creatures discussing such an important subject that they don’t understand because it hasn’t been revealed to them.
It ain’t the way they want to believe it is.
Truth is completely different. The source of the Ultimate Reality has been revealed: