Hey all, I thought this was a good question: “Does attention, experience (or the “passive frame”) *result* from integrated information (as suggested by IIT as some “whole” emergent from integrated parts) or does consciousness *do the integrating*?” It feels active to me anyway... I point my attention somewhere, and feel involved with this process of integrating knowledge. I’ve been maintaining a list of fundamental components, features, and theories of consciousness in the hopes of connecting the dots between these varying perspectives. The unified framework helps a great deal in this regard, as things seem to fit together, and I can sense discovery in piecing the puzzle together. For example, I was reviewing Passive Frame Theory, and how it might relate to Integrated Information Theory. I like the idea of this “frame” through which information is routed, connected, or integrated with other information. I haven’t studied the theory enough to find an explanation for its existence, such as whether it’s emergent, or what? Later, as I was grinding through my usual studies of data science, I realized that I could not attend to stuff that I couldn’t make connections to. Some stuff I’m not ready for, and therefore can’t even pay attention to as hard as I try, (like reading unfamiliar parts of documentation). It made me wonder if attention itself has to do with connecting *to* / integrating *with* prior knowledge. Here’s the question again: Does attention, experience (or the “passive frame”) *result* from integrated information (as suggested by IIT as some “whole” emergent from integrated parts) or does the consciousness *do the integrating*? ...Because the fact that I can’t even attend to unfamiliar documentation (at least in the way I’m meaning to), because I can’t connect it to anything I already know, suggests that: “I am” = the process of integrating information Life/Living = the process of integrating information Also Emerging/Becoming = the Good Life (at least on the Goldilocks path: not too hard, not too boring, but continually learning according to what you’re capable of) As a guess to the answer to my own question, I’d suggest both. We are a feedback cycle of integrating information, self-creation, and moral laws can be derived from what works for generating the good life or not. -Jamie Some Related stuff: I have some hunch that the quantum observer effect does have to do with how we relate to the world coming from an emergent plane of behavior. Also, the fact that light speed is constant relative to an observer going 99% c, and that interlocutors aren’t just elsewhere in space, but time ... The solution to free will IMO, is that our will should be considered free (unrestrained and probably indeterminate) is *relative* to certain domains. Free will is *relative*. It’s like considering possibility. Possibility depends on how you frame the constraints, or which constraints your considering. The topic of free will fools too many people into giving up their power in the immediate present. -- -Jamie ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1