Response to Stanislav T. clarifying why I do not equate C with (all of) mind

Mind

I take the word _mind_ to be, by and large, “what the brain does” although I am happy to exclude various biochemical/hormonal processes related to homeostasis from the term mind. I take the view that one’s mind is, effectively, one’s model of the universe and it is made up of dynamic logical structures (DLS) which, when active, represent features of the world, be they things, relationships, perceptual qualities, muscle movement instructions, or whatever else. I take is also as given that DLS can be active without being a direct part of conscious awareness at that particular moment.

Consciousness (C)

In fact it seems that several strands of mental processing can be going on simulaneously in the brain such that, at a particular moment, only a subset of mental activity is part of C. I am satisfied that my memories of my own experiences in a whole lot of situations confirm this, which is why I define C as rememberable awareness. The emphasis on “rememberable” is because, in my understanding at least, the mental process of attending to things, involves allocating hippocampal processing space, amongst other things, so that what is significant at the time can be remembered in future. In brief (grin) I understand the basis of what I am calling C or rememberable awareness to be as follows. It is the _updating_ of one’s model of self in the world (hence: UMSITW) and the model (MSITW) is composed of DLS which represent: 1/ currently significant features of the world, 2/ currently significant features of self, and 3/ currently significant relationships between 1 & 2. Because active DLS are self sustaining processes (albeit potentially quite transient) which affect the world around them, they are *things which exist*. This is why there is indeed something which exists within the brain which it is like something to be it. QED

Can information be destroyed?

Information can be destroyed

I think it is not true to say that information cannot be destroyed. 

I mean, it may well be true that quantum numbers, or rather the fundamental quantum structural features denoted by the various quantum numbers, may continue to exist forever but they do not necessarily remain in the same structural conformation. The reason this is relevant IMO is that information per se is an aspect of the structure of something or other. In particular we can say that information is embodied in the part or aspect of some structure which can represent something other than itself.

Another way to state this key fact is: information is always about something and always exists within a particular context. It is the context of the situation which allows the particular feature to correspond to the (or the state of the) other thing which it informs about.

One of the assumptions of modern physics is that the total amount of energy of the universe does not change. This cannot be proved but as a working hypothesis it apparently holds true in all the carefully controlled experimental situations investigated so far that: the detected and measured amounts of energy and mass/energy equivalence going into the experiment equal the energy and mass/energy equivalence coming out of it. It also seems to be the case that, to the extent measurable, the quantum numbers – mentioned above – are conserved. It is my understanding that many people take the conservation of quantum numbers “in the universe” to be an indication that information, like energy, is neither created nor destroyed. I think this latter idea is wrong; I think it is based on a conflation of structure with information, which are not the same thing.

I believe this is so because what is not always conserved is the way the quantum numbers are combined. IE, in processes of nuclear fusion and decay for example, quanta related to the weak nuclear force and lepton number either arrive or depart at, or close to, the speed of light and from or to directions that either cannot be known or could only ever be known very imprecisely. In other words there is no mechanism – in principle – by which they can be tracked. Thus the “history” of neutrinos newly arriving to precipitate a decay is simply not known, and the subsequent adventures of neutrinos produced by a fusion can never be written. This means that what might otherwise be taken to be a potential fact or statement of relationship concerning the event is effectively a random arrival, or a randomising disappearance. 

Entropy is a universal fact about our universe. It is essentially a consequence of the seemingly endless expansion of our universe which guarantees that there is always going to be more space available for slow things to be rearranged in and for super fast things to just disappear into, or occasionally, appear out of. At our human, “classical”, scale of things it is clear that information is being lost all the time. The things we make and use, the places and people we know, all change over time; and things and people eventually disappear.

As human beings who live within, through, and by means of a description of the world, we can nonetheless strive to understand and nurture those people, things, and principles we consider most important. That is what philosophy is about and what our daily toil is for. As far as I can see there is no quantum ‘magic’ which can reverse the endless changing and aging of our universe. 

I think the most precious things which have the greatest potential for enduring are good ideas and useful behaviours, in other words beneficial memes. This is what lay philosophy is about!