Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Joseph Brisendine: on 5/4/17 at 1:21am UTC, wrote Hey Robin! Thanks for the compliments and taking the time to read my work!...

Robin Berjon: on 4/27/17 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Hi Joe, thank you for this excellent essay. You're covering a lot of...

Joseph Brisendine: on 4/15/17 at 4:59am UTC, wrote Thanks for the compliments Jeff, and believe me I didn't get around to...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 4/14/17 at 13:35pm UTC, wrote Joe, Too many essays and too little time! I am sorry I did not get to this...

Joseph Brisendine: on 4/8/17 at 4:14am UTC, wrote Marc I do apologize that I somehow missed your comment until just now!...

Joseph Brisendine: on 4/7/17 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read my essay once more,...

Joseph Brisendine: on 4/7/17 at 8:01am UTC, wrote Vladimir, Thank you for the kind words, I've been swamped the past few...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/5/17 at 10:11am UTC, wrote Dear Joseph Murphy Brisendine! Meet up the New Cartesian Physic, based on...


John Cox: "Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve, good discussion going (pardon..." in What Is...

Gary Simpson: "All, I think I'm with Georgina on this one. Sharing ideas and having one..." in What Is...

Nishant Gaurav: "Want to get free playstation plus codes, Yes now these psn plus codes are..." in Jacob Bekenstein...

Nishant Gaurav: "The best to win among hustle for online live gaming platform, is online..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Nishant Gaurav: "When it come to paypal user look for various information and also look for..." in Retrocausality,...

Nishant Gaurav: "yes this is an appropriate blog. bingo bash nice information thanks for..." in Our Place in the...

Nishant Gaurav: "This is what I was looking for thanks a lot..." in Our Place in the...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. ..." in The Complexity Conundrum

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

December 13, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: A Sign without Meaning by Joseph Murphy Brisendine [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Essay Abstract

The aim of this work is to bring together the contemporary understanding of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and Information theory built from the large-deviations scaling derivation of the Shannon-Gibbs entropy with the critique of Cartesian rationality and theory of embodied selfhood presented by the French and German phenomenological philosophical traditions. These two very different intellectual resources work together to provide an account of the emergence of and relations between objects and subjects along with the conditions required for their stability. Information and meaning are distinguished and we present a definition of meaningful information which relies on the inferential capcity of dynamical systems interacting repeatedly with a fluctuating environment. We then trace the origin of the question regarding the emergence of intentionality to the problem of Cartesian dualism, and argue that the very same anthropic principle which underlies the intuition of the Cogito is also, when applied to itself, the explanation for the illusion of the certainty of the Cogito. Finally, we end with a plea for accepting the relative instability of selfhood as a condition of understanding and accepting our emergent humanity.

Author Bio

I am a PhD candidate in biochemistry at CUNY with a background in philosophy. I earned a Master's degree in philosophy before transitioning to science in my mid 20's, and since that time I have been trying to understand the physics of the living state. While my circuitous path has not yet led me to renown as a researcher, I have tried to use my diverse education to craft a response to this question that speaks to our scientific curiosity and our living passion in equal measure.

Download Essay PDF File

Don C Foster wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Great job! You covered a lot of difficult conceptual terrain in a clear and approachable fashion. Good read. Hope you get a chance to look at my essay when it completes gestation. Best, Don Foster

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 20:27 GMT
Thanks very much for the kind words! I'll gladly look at your essay, has it been posted yet? If not, I'll keep an eye out.


Don C Foster wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 18:55 GMT
Ah, a question emerges. I wonder how to fit, within your koanical closing remarks about the mutability of structure, Prigogine’s insight that ‘time’s arrow’ emerges from irreversible dynamics of dissipative structures and allows for structure to accumulate. Thereby is created a ratchet effect, a coral-like accretion of energy/material pathways that have integrity and an ‘inertial’ continuity.


report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT

Thank you for mentioning Prigogine, I agree with the philosophical thrust of his ideas and think that he was ahead of his time in many ways, but also the mathematical details of some of what he proposed in the 1970's regarding "microscopic irreversibility' appear now to be incorrect in light of the major advances in non-eq thermo that have taken place since the various fluctuation...

view entire post

Don C Foster replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT

I much appreciate your walking me through that. I looked at Eric Smith’s paper and confess the mathematics was a couple of orders of magnitude too complex for my appreciation. Still, I am sorry to give up on the arrow of time and wonder if there is what you might call the practical chef’s arrow of time and thus not feel compelled to watch the skillet in case the eggs should pop...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT

I started working through the math of contemporary thermo about 5 years agao now, and it took at least three years and many, many examples from my own research and others combined with many hours of pondering before I felt like I had a decent grasp of what was going on, but I promise you that it's all much simpler than the formalism makes it look. Also, I don't want to cause any confusion, the arrow of time that you grew up with is still alive and well, nothing has really changed in our philosophical understanding of what irreversibility means for life at the human scale, these issues really only ever impacted what was happening at microscopic scales to begin with. Biology is probably poised right at the scale where it can make use of fluctuations away from equilibrium that appear to "violate" a pre-statistical understanding of the second law for some if its processes, non-adiabatic tunneling reactions in particular, but also have other processes occurring that are effectively irreversible and completely obey our classical understanding of the second law, ATP hydrolysis would be an example of the latter. So there's no need to worry about second-law 'violations' or Maxwell's demons when you're cooking!


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Joseph Murphy Brisendine,

Good essay on Philosophy of perception of things. Your thinking is Good… Let me quote a few points….

1. Structure is never simply structure then, but rather information which may be potentially transmitted from one environment to another and thus shared, becoming mutual information. It was not made to last, but rather to be transmitted. It is a sign, signifying nothing in itself; always for we—the living—to decide what it means.

2. I would invite you to try and consider how the world would manifest to you if you had no memory,

3. Bacterial chemotaxis is an example of perhaps the simplest possible manifestation of meaningfulness we know, and it is understood in complete mechanistic detail (13). The basic structure of the sensing-computing-acting feedback loop can also already be seen in this example

I can suggest you to read the Philosophical thinking of Jiddu Krishna Murti or JK of JK Foundation, USA …………

Have look at my essay also…

Best wishes…………….

=snp. gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 02:15 GMT
Mr. Gupta,

Thank you for taking the time to read and appreciate my work. When I was studying philosophy in my youth, I was interested in eastern thought also, and in particular Dogen's writings collected under the title "Moon in a Dewdrop" had a big influence on me, as well as modern Japanese philosophy from the Kyoto school. After I transitioned to science, I was more immediately concerned with making sure that I had a firm grasp of the technical details of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. But once I became comfortable with my own expertise, limited as it is, I began returning to thinking about those texts from my youth, and I found many of Dogen's koans to actually be very good at bringing across technical points concerning scale-invariance, renormalization, and symmetry-breaking. Not that ancient thinkers somehow just "intuited" these technical ideas at all, mind you, and I'd never tell someone to read eastern philsophy in order to learn statistical physics (you give them Landau and Lifshitz and tell them to walk the path for themselves), but rather that their insights about nature were prescient in ways that they couldn't understand but somehow managed to articulate anyway, and in hindsight we may gain insight into issues where our everyday intuition is a poor guide if we let ourselves combine a rigorous, technical grasp of the science with an open-minded view of what ancient texts have to offer.

I read your essay also, and enjoyed learning about galactic lifecycles.



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 19:53 GMT
Hi Joseph Murphy Brisendine,

Yours is one of the best written, most insightful, and greatest joy to read of all essays here, which is saying something. Rather than list things with which I agree, which would for the most part simply reproduce your essay, I will focus on our differences.

You discuss two robots, (similar to one discussed in my endnotes) to one of which you wish to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 03:40 GMT
Hi Eugene,

First and foremost I appreciate the feedback. I clearly put a lot of myself into the work and it's immensely rewarding to hear that it resonates with people. It would seem that we agree on the 'spirit' of many aspects of the question but I'm uncertain if we agree in the details of the letter. On our point of contention, I am of the opinion that it is possible to confer...

view entire post

Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Joe,

this is a nice essay. I particularly like your E.coli example illustrating that one process can at the same time be both, a manifestation of mindless mathematical laws and of intentional behavior -- depending on the language you use to describe it (or at which scale you describe it, as I'd put it).

I'm not sure that I agree that there is a "highly-discontinuous change" "when we arrive at 'ourselves'". Couldn't it be that you only perceive this last step as bigger than previous steps, because you can't look at it from an even "higher" perspective? Don't you think that from the perspective of E.coli the step which distinguishes E.coli from everything that was there on a "lower" level would also be perceived as huge?

I think this also touches upon a question you raise: Perceiving the last step leading to 'ourselves' as particularly big, might explain why it is more difficult for us to admit the fragility of what is achieved in this last step.

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 07:57 GMT
Thanks Stefan!

I would use the term scale also, and it's good to get a response from a sober physicalist! There's a sense in which it's important to recognize that there is no discontinuity whatsoever when you just view us biologically, perhaps I didn't emphasize that enough but I was short for space. As animals we're fairly unremarkable, maladapted even, and part of me would respond to...

view entire post

Stefan Keppeler replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Thanks for that long reply! You clearly argue your point, especially when you contrast "modern humans" with our much longer history as a biological species. Yes, I'm also in the contest -- Goals emerge in macroscopic descriptions of the world -- and, as you guessed, my line of reasoning is not exactly orthogonal to yours. ;-)

report post as inappropriate

Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 21:09 GMT
Hi Joseph Murphy Brisendine

Very interesting essay.

Meaning based information is of the type that hold at least one possible action between two "existents". If there is no potential action in the relation there is no meaning.

Yet, as I understood you the inner concrete "I" or "self organization" is kept as imaginary one rather than ratifying its self reality through its life duration. The Cartesian approach to reality is dualistic and causal (any levels of complexities).

Yes, we do perceive reality objectively, which give the uniqueness in us and in the reality itself. It is an eminent transcendental reality, and through it (with it) comes the glory of phenomena.


yehuda atai

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 08:00 GMT
Thanks Yehuda! From your comments I have the impression you are a phenomenologist in the tradition of Husserl. I personally prefer (young) Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, but I do certainly believe in the glory of phenomenaa! I'll look over you essay now as well I have been meaning to :)


Mark Pharoah wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 19:55 GMT

I enjoyed reading your essay but have some questions for you:

You say, “I would invite you to try and consider how the world would manifest to you if you had no memory…” You ask whether individuals with severe memory impairment possess “selves” and whether such individuals know that they exist? You answer, “I believe the evidence obliges us to answer no.”

You are saying, that individuals with total memory impairment do not know they exist, that is, that they do not have a self. But the two things are not the same. Knowing you exist is not the same as having a self. When I am asleep, I do not know if I exist or not, but does my ‘self’ really cease to exist until I wake? Does an infant human not have a self until it has a memory? By this reasoncing, if two infants have the same memory, for instance: ‘the ice cream I had yesterday was delicious’, are you to say both infants have the same self? If they don't have the same self, then self must be more than memory. So, you see, the existence of memory is not, prima facie, the pillar of selfhood as you say it is.

In many respects you echo Dennett’s stance. You say, “As we move from the meaningfulness manifested by bacterial chemotaxis to the meaningfulness manifested by animals in their environments, not much changes except the scale of the processes involved.” Similarly, Dennett explains that the difference between simple and complex systems is one of scale—one of degrees of system complexity. I describe this view toward intentionality and representation as a greyscale stance were intentionality is determined by degrees of functional complexity. In my critical analysis (see paper at I explain why this stance is problematic.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 23:43 GMT
Hi Mark!

I did my best to distinguish between selfhood and self-awareness in the essay, or being a self vs knowing that you are a self, but I was covering a lot of ground and I might have not been clear on my position. To answer your questions just from my perspective first, any living thing that embodies a dynamical system "thermostatted" to a fluctuating environment is a self, to borrow...

view entire post

Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:42 GMT

Thank you for a deeply thoughtful and nicely written essay. There are aspects of your philosophical view that are very insightful and well presented – for example, in thinking about what it would be like to have no memory, and in your critique of “self” as a basic intuition. And your overview of the progression from thermal physics to bacteria etc. is excellent, very...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Hi Conrad,

Thanks for the kind words and I'll be sure to look over your essay as soon as I get the chance, I've been travelling and haven't been able to reply freely. I think that you're correct about the weaker parts of my thesis, and I fully admit that I don't have the education in human anthropology, a subject I've never really studied, to properly address the mechanistic causes of our...

view entire post

Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:59 GMT

Rereading my post, I think it sounds more critical than I meant it to be… I really was impressed by your essay, and it deserves a 10, a rating I don’t give lightly. And I’m far from an expert in any field of science, though I try to make sure my writing is accurate. Heidegger I do know fairly well, since he was very important to me in grad school back in the 70’s. I’m very glad you know his work, and delighted to find someone with that background doing biochemistry. The truth is I can hardly read “Philosophy” any more, since the world itself is so much more interesting. It often seems to me that while our knowledge has grown exponentially since 1900, we still seem to conceptualize the world largely in terms that were familiar in the 19th century.

You say, “What I really want to retain from Being and Time are all the resources we need to combat all of this neo-dualism that has cropped up in phil mind” – Yes, this is where Being and Time really succeeds, as still the deepest critique of the Cartesian/Kantian tradition. And he did it by articulating the many “equiprimordial” elements involved in what seems like the perfectly simple idea of “self”. I get your point about taking self-awareness as a “teleological” explanation of what makes us humans so different, and you’re right that it’s implicit in all our experience, from a very early age. And I’m intrigued by your comment about “the dimensional context of experience” that’s hidden by dualism… I hope to discuss that further!

Thanks – Conrad

report post as inappropriate

Mark Pharoah wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:08 GMT

Thanks for the detailed response to my queries. I can see now there is much more to your ideas than could have been crammed into the essay topic. I did misinterpret some of your ideas and would need to read it again I think now that you have clarified things. It would be nice to cover more of these ideas through discussion.

In your second paragraph you talk of the emergence of self-awareness and say "I don't know what the mechanism was that actually caused this change" (the change that brought about self-awareness). You may be interested in my hierarchical construct theory essay which also talks about a hierarchy of emergent capabilities that have distinctive attributes. I do give an account of how each level, in a three-tiered hierarchy, emerge and evolve.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 18:55 GMT
Conrad, Mark, Stefan, everyone else who expressed interest in further discussion--

Thank you all for considering my ideas and it would be my pleasure. I can be reached at and feel free to reach out anytime. Meanwhile I'll get back in touch once I have properly considered everyone else's entries.



Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 22:18 GMT
Hi, Joseph, congratulations, this is an excellent essay. Both for the ideas in it, and the writing. Many of the things you mention resonate with the ones I chose to focus in my essay (comments from you would be most appreciated). I still get wound up by the anthropic reasoning, though. I understand that conditioning on our existence rules outs a-priori possible evolutions of the universe that do not give rise to us. I also understand that perceiving ourselves makes all things related to ourselves interesting. I do not understand, however, in which way anthropic reasoning provides explanations - and I do care for explanations, whatever those may be!

In any case, this is an old problem I've been having for ages, it's not your fault, I'll just have to keep thinking. In any case, thanks for the great read!

inés = one more sign without meaning about to fall apart.

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi Ines that was a lovely compliment!

I had noticed and enjoyed your essay a great deal as well, I will definitely share my thoughts on it with you on your page. But first allow me to say that there's a sense in which you're right, anthropic reasoning explains nothing. If we insist that an explanation must be a mechanistic explanation, which means that it should tell us clearly how to...

view entire post

Ines Samengo replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 23:56 GMT
I think you are right, I am expecting from anthropic reasoning something it cannot quite provide. I just wish I could benefit more from the things it can actually provide. I promise to work on it, and if needed, come back to you...

Thanks for the great explanation!!


report post as inappropriate

Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 04:50 GMT

Is not a spark of fire a goal-directed and replicating phenomenon?

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 05:01 GMT
Gee I think it all depends on what you mean by that, and what you include or don't as part of the "spark."

Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Joseph,

your essay is remarkable for the degree of personal participation that you put in your story-telling, both in tone and in contents.

However, if I were to summarise some of the main points you make, I’d have some difficulty with one which is quite central: the value of the self. On one hand you attribute much higher sophistication and ‘computational capability’ to the robot with self-awareness (following mainly Aaronson?); on the other, you regard the pretended certainty and stability of the self as a “wonderful irony of the history of philosophy”. Maybe the conflict is only apparent? I’d be curious about a final word from you on the issue. (I read your text twice, but didn’t go through the comments in your blog. Apologies if you have already covered the issue.)

Thank you and best regards!


report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 23:50 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Tommaso!

I'm happy to try to clarify my position. As you intuited, I think the tension is only apparent. I think the gain in computational complexity due to the ability to use "anthropic reasoning" has been demonstrated clearly by Aaronson, just as you say, and that this complexity gain is the "teleological" explanation for our self-awareness. This doesn't mean, of course, that this caused us to become self-aware, as this would be like saying that photosynthesis was discovered "so that orgaansms could use sunlight." only a mechanistic explanation actually tells you how to create something and allows you to infer it's actual cause for existence. A teleological explanation does tell you, however, why it is that once there were self-aware animals they quickly out-learned non self-aware animals, just s it tells you why, once there were photosynthetic organims, they quickly covered the earth. So that's the powerful part of our selfhood. My claim is that it is powerful but also unstable. The sense of its instability can be found everywhere in our experience if we pay attenntion to it, but then my contention is that it also follows logically from understanding how biology increases its thermodynamic efficiency in line with natural selection. If you want to compute things near the Landauer limit, your band gaps have to be as close to kT as they can get without being overcome by noise. Our self-awareness then is the source of our superior understanding of nature and our ability to share information so readily, but the "free energy of formation of self-awareness" appears to be very small, and easily overcome. I hope that all makes sense!

Thanks also for taking the time to read and consider my ideas, it is very rewarding to know that they were seriously considered by another intellect!


Simon DeDeo wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Joe --

A lot going on in this lovely piece.

A question, since you anchor meaning in "information relevant to survival".

Say I simulate an evolutionary process on my computer. The symbols the machine processes have meaning for me, of course. But could they also have meaning for each other? (E.g., could the symbol equivalent to a deleterious simulated environment have "meaning for" the symbol equivalent to a simulated organism? If the agent ignores it, that agent's symbol will die/become less common).



report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 07:52 GMT
Hi Simon! Thanks for reading my essay and I have to say I'm a little starstruck because I'm a big fan of your work!

As to your question, I wanted to define meaning more along the lines of attention, I actually had Heidegger's notion of "care" in mind when I was trying to decide what made information meaninfgul. In biology, that's generically connected to survival but then, even for most...

view entire post

Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 04:48 GMT
Dear Joe,

Fascinating essay! I found particularly enlightening your discussion of what you identify as a "wonderful irony of the history of philosophy", that selfhood would be the "most certain fact of all". Your example of someone without memory clearly drives home the point that the only thing that can be taken for certain is the (conscious) perception of the present instant, which may or may not come with the "thin veneer" of selfhood.

Later in your essay, you identify the importance of feedback loops, a theme I also take up in my essay (where I postulate that conscious agents and regular physical laws "resonate" together and co-emerge within the infinite domain of all abstract structures). I like the way you put it: "We are interested in this world which is our home, and it repays us by being interesting. 'In this sense all things are indebted to us.' "

Overall, I think your essay is well written, interesting, to the point and thought provoking. Congratulations, and good luck in the contest!


report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 04:14 GMT

I do apologize that I somehow missed your comment until just now! Thank you though, and best of luck to you as well!


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Joseph,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest rating.

I'm glad that you have your own position

«this “sweet spot” in its parameter space it also where its thermodynamic efficiency is greatest, or equivalently where it can process the most information at the minimum energetic cost, a point I have also argued from my own research as a protein designer.»

« Structure is never simply structure then, but rather information which may be potentially transmitted from one environment to another and thus shared, becoming mutual information. It was not made to last, but rather to be transmitted. It is a sign, signifying nothing in itself;»

«If Newton’s Principia Mathematica is the logical starting point for modern science, for modern hilosophy Descartes’ Meditations surely plays a dual role.»

Your questions are very close to me

«but can we actually give a mathematical criteria for when the amount of macro-state degeneracy leads an "aims and intentions" desciption to be more efficient than a thermodynamic description?»

«I'm definitely not criticizig because I don't think I know the answer either, but it seems like it would be fun to think about.»

You might also like reading my essay , where it is claimed that quantum phenomena occur in the macro world, where is no measurement problem due to the dynamism of the elements of the medium in the form of de Broglie waves of electrons, where parametric resonance occurs and solitons are formed, which mechanism of work is similar to the principle of the heat pump.

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:01 GMT

Thank you for the kind words, I've been swamped the past few weeks as I'm trying to complete my dissertation and schedule my defense, but I promise to read and respond to your essay before the contest closes tomorrow as well!


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Joseph Murphy Brisendine!

Meet up the New Cartesian Physic, based on the identity of space and matter. You need it, because it showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physics has enormous potential in understanding the world. To show this potential I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I have to do the same in your theme


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read my essay once more, and say that this has been a rewarding experience for me. I'm particularly glad to have found the appreciation of like-minded intellects, and I learned a great deal from the other entries which have helped to clarify my own thoughts enormously. If I could do it over, with everyone's feedback, I'm sure I could have done much better! But growth is the gift of being, and I am indebted to everyone who earnestly engaged with me. Thank you also to FQXI for sponsoring such a timely and vital discussion.


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Apr. 14, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT

Too many essays and too little time! I am sorry I did not get to this during the contest.

First, you have a clear writing style that tells a story that alone makes this a very good essay.

Second, you talk about thermodynamics beyond just noise in communication. This sharp temperature boundary that life thrives is center to understanding the formation of life.

You get a little too much into human intentions for my taste (I start at minimum and stay there), but how you walk as through step is wonderful.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Apr. 15, 2017 @ 04:59 GMT
Thanks for the compliments Jeff, and believe me I didn't get around to nearly as many of the essays as I would have liked, I'm less bothered about the contest and happier to know that my ideas find even a small receptive audience. I focused on human intentions in the second half of the essay because I felt that's what we really want from this essay topic, and why this question intrigues us: at bottom it's about whether our intentions can be "reduced" to the laws of physics and if so what that means. I tried to indicate, first, that modern thermodynamics can explain the emergence of intentionality but second, and perhaps more importantly, that our experience of the world is not demeaned by being explicable in terms of mathematical laws. Indeed, I think this explicability is proof that we belong in nature, and my hope is that understanding physics and how humanity emerges naturally would ultimately make us feel less alienated within nature. Getting the physics right should be first ad foremost, but we should not forget why our effort matters and what we hope to accomplish while doing that.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and reply!


Robin Berjon wrote on Apr. 27, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi Joe,

thank you for this excellent essay. You're covering a lot of ground in a short space but nevertheless manage to remain very clear.

I really like what you did with memory and selves. It comes with interesting questions. Does a pushdown automaton have more selfhood than a DFA, or does it start a little higher up the food chain than that? Conversely, is there a point at which excessive memory (perhaps compared to some other dimension) decreases selfhood? There are certainly clinical cases of people with perfect recall and it appears to be impeding them in more ways than one.

It is true that the self is very much unstable, and I like the irony you point out, but at the same time it just keeps coming back! You don't really hear stories of people who suddenly just went blank (except perhaps in a Brian Catling novel). This process persistence is interesting in itself.

One thing I am unsure of: if plants are every bit as subtle and ingenious as animals, can we really conclude that they are mindless? I think I might be missing something in how you define a mind. Given the same purposefulness and barring access to their internal experience, I would tend to grant them the same mindfulness. They might not have motility, which might annoy Merleau-Ponty (and then again, rhizomes can cover quite some ground), but at first sight I wonder, only partly facetiously, if the distinction is not somewhat "kingdomist"?

PS: there appears to be a few of the participants who are around New York here, maybe we should organise some form of get-together :)

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Murphy Brisendine replied on May. 4, 2017 @ 01:21 GMT
Hey Robin!

Thanks for the compliments and taking the time to read my work! I agree with your comments about memory, and if I could have written another 10,000 words I would have unpacked things in much greater detail, and I definitely let clarity suffer in a few places in favor of poetic effect. I wouldn't want to suggest that there's anything like a monotonic relationship between memory...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.