"Because cognition and generic information transduction are identical up to isomorphism – after all, cognition is just the specific form of information processing that occurs in a mind – information processing can be described as “generalized cognition”, and the coincidence of information and processor can be referred to as infocognition. Reality thus consists of a single “substance”, infocognition, with two aspects corresponding to transduction and being transduced. Describing reality as infocognition thus amounts to (infocognitive) dual aspect monism. Where infocognition equals the distributed generalized self-perception and self-cognition of reality, infocognitive monism implies a stratified form of “panpsychism” in which at least three levels of self-cognition can be distinguished with respect to scope, power and coherence: global, agentive and subordinate. http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Infocognition Here we see that reality is a single substance known as infocognition. This would imply that matter resides on a lower level of reality and therefore cannot qualify as "ultimate reality". Langan expanded on John Wheeler's idea that information constituted Physics. Does this mean that what we see, touch, taste and feel are merely representations of a single idealistic reality which qualifies as "Ultimate reality"?
The fact that most such theories, e.g. theories of physics, point to the fundamental status of something “objective” and “independent of language”, e.g. matter and/or energy, is quite irrelevant, for the very act of pointing invokes an isomorphism between theory and objective reality…an isomorphism that is subject to the Reality Principle, and which could not exist unless reality shared the linguistic structure of the theory itself. Perhaps the meaning of this principle can be most concisely expressed through a generalization of the aphorism “whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent”: whereof that which cannot be linguistically described, one cannot perceive or conceive. So for the observational and theoretical purposes of science and reality theory, that which is nonisomorphic to language is beyond consideration as a component of reality. http://isotelesis.blogspot.ca/2011_04_01_archive.html This quote explains reality as a language for the two are isomorphic to each other. Hence the union of cognition and information or syntax and content.
It's packaged as if it was philosophy in torrents of impenetrably-opaque cut-and-pasted pseudo-technical rhetoric, but in reality it's quasi-religious preaching as far as I'm concerned. I don't find this stuff the least bit helpful in my own thinking. I don't even find it particularly interesting, it's just increasingly annoying.
While it's arguable that cognition is indeed a subset of the broader category of information processing (I'm strongly inclined to think that's true), I think that it might be misleading to try to reverse that so as to imagine that all information processing is cognition. Sure it can be. (Anything can be referred to as anything, I guess.) The question then is why somebody should make that move. The idea that language somehow processes itself is seemingly gratuitous, part of the bigger project of simply dismissing the material world and reducing reality to a divine language. ('In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1.) Again, how does one arrive at that rather grandiose conclusion from merely noting initially that human cognition might arguably be a particular subset of the broader category of information processing? We can all see that assertion being made. What we haven't seen yet are plausible and convincing reasons to think that it's true. Ultimate reality, the source from which everything springs, is supposed to be God's unknowable purpose and will, right? 'Telesis' or whatever you insist on calling it. ('The word 'telesis' seems to derive from the Greek word 'telos' meaning purpose.) Then ourselves and the universe around us emerges from that mystery by means of God's creative 'Word', renamed 'infocognition'. Gotcha.
Cognition can reduce down to or is a specialized subset of the mechanistic-like relationships already present / at work in the universe. But cognition is not ubiquitous because it fundamentally requires memory / data storage and an array of other specialized processes appended to it. Information patterns don't entail having qualia or "phenomenal showings" as intrinsic states, even though some information philosophies kind of back-handedly suggest that as a solution to Chalmers' hard problem. So even having a cognitive system in place to receive and manipulate such inputted energy organizations doesn't mean there is anything other than qualitative-less, unshown "matter / energy" configurations to identify and understand (i.e., the kind of empty / blank "consciousness" that computers or philosophical zombies would deal in). There are no precursors posited in the physical sciences for experience to emerge non-brutely from, and the majority of the establishment is content to leave it at that. NCCs or certain complex electrochemical "dances" simply conjure the novelty of sensory information and thoughts having appearances (manifested images, odors, tactile feelings, pain, etc). Accordingly, any philosophical scheme (like Langan's) that "seems" to be recruiting those non-social sciences for its purposes or makes pretensions of being a science itself (one-leg-wise) would be struggling futilely to advance an agenda of panexperientialism (much less outright panpsychism which tries to make cognition universal). To be honest, I find it astonishing that a scientist like Christof Koch has gone down this road. Affiliated with Francis Crick at one time, he was brushed-off by the "woo-woo" crowd with as much vehemence as any that they considered their foes. Now, in recent years, he suddenly sounds like Galen Strawson or Gregg Rosenberg. The roots for this were apparently there early on, but he did a good job over the years of outwardly suppressing them, of appearing as if he was removed from the panproto-consciousness camp. So while the "let's leave the phenomenal part of consciousness hanging there like magic" trend, and the eliminativist denial mode that we have experiences at all (somewhat reminiscent of time-denial), and the epiphenomenalism dodge of "the manifestations of perception and private thoughts make no causal contribution so we don't need to explicate them further" are in vogue now... Maybe this turn of Koch, albeit probably bizarre from the standpoint of his colleagues, is an indication that in the future there will be a valid interest outside of philosophy of mind in trying to explain that particular area of consciousness more deeply. I doubt it however.
Hmm... It seems a contradiction You say that this ultimate reality has all the senses but at the same time consider this as a single idealistic reality Which means this single reality , is really meaningless I mean what does it matter , if this single reality if it comes down the senses anyway ?
If you look at early animal evolution, beginning with crude sensory systems, these early sensory systems, like smell and vision, will fire due to interaction with the environment. Once fired, they will send signals to the brain that electronically represent the stimulus and trigger secondary effects. Since this is early in evolution, the sensory systems are crude, and will not give high definition clarity to the source of the stimulus. Reality will appear fuzzy without sharp lines, angles and colors. The fish may only notice a fuzzy flash as food. His reality of food is this fuzzy flash is the source of nourishment. That is his/her reality. As the sensory systems evolve and their resolution level increases, the external reality, which is also evolving, is getting clearer. It is not the resolution of actual reality that is changing, but rather as the tools evolve, the clarity of reality perception will improve. Science has added a wild card in that technology allows our sensory systems to become extrapolated to even better than natural. We can see cells under the microscope and distant galaxies through the telescope. These have always been part of reality, and did not suddenly appear due to the invention. Rather, this was not yet part of the human perception of reality, except as a fuzzy flash of intuition. Intuition is where the brain uses the current data and extrapolates, using software enhancement of the input data. It goes back to the base of the fuzzy fish to fire the arrow. One may argue there is a simple base reality, but our perception has changed with time, with increasing clarity, as input resolution improves. But in the same token, the very early years of low resolution, even with a fuzzy perception of reality, helped build a genetic foundation, on which the future perception of reality will also be built; natural selection. The fuzzy flash of the early fish is part of the foundation of reality perception. This base is where there is simple reality, that points the way to clarity.
