How Does Evolution Produce Consciousness/Reason?

[Fist and Faith]

Well I'm all in favor of ignoring Godel for this conversation!

[wayfriend]

Well, I see it like this: if consciousness can be understood, then it is a set of processes, which means it can be modeled completely as a formal system; if consciousness isn't a formal system, then it's not a set of processes, and cannot be understood.

That's just my opinion. I am not disagreeing with your recent post, just saying, if it's not a formal system, then we will never be able to understand it. Only sometimes predict it through an incomplete model.

Anyone who believes that there will always be something about consciousness that is "beyond" scientific explanation is certainly in that camp.

Also remember, that if we understand consciousness, then we have to be able to model consciousness in a way that includes that it understands consciousness. Who says it can't? Godel.

So either we can't understand it because of Godel, or we can't understand it because it is beyond science. Or Godel is wrong. Or there's something else.

Excluding all the other options and thereby proving there is "something else" is what makes science happen: it's not the mother of invention, but it's the hot lady in the bikini with the come-hither look in her eyes.

[Zarathustra]

Just because something is a set of processes doesn't mean it can be modeled *as* a formal system. Substitute 'with' for 'as' and you'll be closer to the truth. Godel's theorem applies only to formal systems at least as complicated as arithmetic. There are plenty of physical systems that have processes that aren't as complicated as arithmetic.

I think there is a basic confusion here as to what explanation actually is. It is not rendering all of reality into a formal system, but instead using formal systems as tools to describe patterns in the interactions of parts of a physical system. E=mc2 is not a formal system. It's a formula.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that anything, much less consciousness, cannot be understood if it cannot be modeled as a formal system. Nor is it correct to assume that understanding of a system can not happen if that system is incomplete. Therefore, even if consciousness were modeled as a formal system, it would be incorrect to say that we can not understand it because that model is necessarily incomplete, because we obviously understand Godel's theorem, which is itself an understanding of formal systems that go beyond formal systems. Thus, understanding something, even a formal system, does not rely on the completeness of formal systems. And that is another way to say that consciousness can't be modeled as a formal system, but this does not put a limit on our ability to understand consciousness, because, obviously understanding transcends formal systems ( otherwise we would never be able to understand godel's theorem).

[Skyweir]

Just because something is a set of processes doesn't mean it can be modeled *as* a formal system. Substitute 'with' for 'as' and you'll be closer to the truth. Godel's theorem applies only to formal systems at least as complicated as arithmetic. There are plenty of physical systems that have processes that aren't as complicated as arithmetic.

I think there is a basic confusion here as to what explanation actually is. It is not rendering all of reality into a formal system, but instead using formal systems as tools to describe patterns in the interactions of parts of a physical system. E=mc2 is not a formal system. It's a formula.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that anything, much less consciousness, cannot be understood if it cannot be modeled as a formal system. Nor is it correct to assume that understanding of a system can not happen if that system is incomplete. Therefore, even if consciousness were modeled as a formal system, it would be incorrect to say that we can not understand it because that model is necessarily incomplete, because we obviously understand Godel's theorem, which is itself an understanding of formal systems that go beyond formal systems. Thus, understanding something, even a formal system, does not rely on the completeness of formal systems. And that is another way to say that consciousness can't be modeled as a formal system, but this does not put a limit on our ability to understand consciousness, because, obviously understanding transcends formal systems ( otherwise we would never be able to understand godel's theorem).

mmm.. interesting analysis Z and Wayfriend.

Could you not both be right .. or both possess ideas that both progress an understanding of consciousness?

Ok I see your point Z that there is a flaw in the idea that consciousness could not be understood if it cannot be modelled as a formal system .. but you said something which I cant understand and that is that the existence of a set of processes [that we must understand, at least in part to have identified them] doesn't mean it can be modelled WITH a formal system. What does that mean?

And ok if Godels theorem doesn't apply to complex systems like consciousness .. but will note that are we agreeing that consciousness is a system?

On that I do not suggest that consciousness is .. but if it were .. then our understanding of consciousness must then mean that it is.

Or is it set of processes? Either way to my mind it is both. Clearly the problem with defining consciousness resides in our ability to understand it. Many claim that consciousness is a first person experience. Because there are no third party objective or observable phyical attributes but those are inferred behaviours. Consciousness is the field of subjective experience, is it not?

I found this article interesting .. and highlights the competing theories surrounding consciousness

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... sciousness

[Zarathustra]

Could you not both be right .. or both possess ideas that both progress an understanding of consciousness?

Well, WF seems to be saying that we can't understand consciousness (if I understand correctly), so I don't think this is possible.

Ok I see your point Z that there is a flaw in the idea that consciousness could not be understood if it cannot be modelled as a formal system .. but you said something which I cant understand and that is that the existence of a set of processes [that we must understand, at least in part to have identified them] doesn't mean it can be modelled WITH a formal system. What does that mean?

All I mean is that we use math in science. It's a tool. But just because processes in the physical universe have patterns which (for some reason we don't understand) can be modeled by mathematical relations does not mean that the formulas we use to capture these patterns constitute a formal system.

In formal systems, you can generate purely formal "truths." Such as: 2+2=4. That's a formal truth. Godel's point, in saying that formal systems are incomplete, was that there will always be formal truths within the system that can't be proven by means of that system, i.e. with the axioms and syntax of that system. But we can easily discover these truths ourselves (otherwise Godel couldn't have proven this), because we can "step outside of" formal systems. Our understanding isn't an axiomatic truth.


Godel's proof only applies to formal systems, not physical systems, because it's a logical consequence of axiomatic, rule-based systems. The truths of physical systems, on the other hand, don't depend upon syntactical rules, i.e. logical necessity, for their veracity. Physical truths are contingent, not logically necessary. (That's one of the reasons why it's so surprising that they can be modeled with math at all.)

We don't just use logic to prove truths in the physical world. We also use evidence. No logic will tell you beforehand that an object will fall to the ground. We have to discover that fact through witnessing it. But you don't have to witness that 2+2=4. It's just part of the syntax and rules of that symbolic system.

And ok if Godels theorem doesn't apply to complex systems like consciousness .. but will note that are we agreeing that consciousness is a system?

Godel's theorem doesn't apply to *any* physical system. Only symbolic, axiomatic ones. Consciousness is a system, but it's not a system of axioms and symbols. You might be able to take a system of symbols (i.e. math) and model some of this physical system, but that doesn't mean that the arrangement of the brain = math. If it did, then we'd already understand it, because we already do math. The truths of the brain can't be simply calculated (like the truths in any formal system). They have to be discovered. The process of modeling a physical system is not just plugging numbers into formulas. You have to discover the formulas, i.e. which ones fit the data. If consciousness were actually a formal system, this would work in the opposite way: we'd start with axioms and then calculate truths from these axioms.

None of the formulas that science uses constitute a formal system . . . no more than any sentence constitutes a language. We use a language to build sentences (just as we use math to create formulas). But there will always exist possible sentences that can be written--grammatically correct sentences--that can't be predicted merely by looking at the rules of grammar. The world is sort of like this, except it's a book that is already written, so to speak. We can get an idea of the overall story the more that we read, especially since we keep skipping around and peeking ahead. We can devise theories about what will happen in chapter X and then check those theories against the evidence. But we can't simply predict what the book will say just because we know the language and its grammar rules. It *will* have to follow those rules, in some fashion, but the way it conforms to those rules in no way limits what it "says."

A book is not a language. A scientific explanation isn't a formal system.

[Skyweir]

Thanks Z very interesting and illuminating. Thanks for sharing

Oh I read W as kinda more saying "if" consciousness can be understood it is a set of processes. As you have described .. Godel isnt the best authority re the mind and consciousness re physical systems. As you have explained his rationale applies to formal systems, axiomatic or symbolic systems.

[Fist and Faith]

...processes in the physical universe have patterns which (for some reason we don't understand) can be modeled by mathematical relations...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's either total chaos, or there's not. If there's not, then there are patterns. What type of modeling could those patterns have whose reason we would be able to understand? (The reason for which we would be able to understand. Not sure how to word that.)

[Zarathustra]

...processes in the physical universe have patterns which (for some reason we don't understand) can be modeled by mathematical relations...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's either total chaos, or there's not. If there's not, then there are patterns. What type of modeling could those patterns have whose reason we would be able to understand? (The reason for which we would be able to understand. Not sure how to word that.)

That's a good question. I think that it's possible for there to be beauty and order in the world without it necessarily being mathematical. For instance, think of the shape of a tree, or a beautiful work of art. Not everything can be described with a mathematical formula--and certainly not in a way that can be used to predict the future, like mechanics. The options aren't only chaos or math, there's a lot in between. After all, sometimes it's very difficult to find a mathematical formula to describe something. But that doesn't mean it's chaos, it's just complex. It could have been the case that the complexity of the universe defied any mathematical description, but this wouldn't mean that it is chaotic. Right now we don't know how to resolve quantum mechanics and relativity. Does that mean it's chaos? It's possible that it will never be resolved into a single formula. That doesn't mean that the order we see is invalid.


Also, the relationships could have been "random" without it being entirely chaotic. Think of the ratio of mass between an electron and a proton. We can describe it in terms of numbers, but we have no idea why that ratio is what it is, rather than something else. All of the patterns in the universe could have been like this, with no underlying symmetry or predictability.


And finally, the universe could have been chaotic. We don't know why it has order. That's probably the simplest answer to your question. Not only does it have order, but it has an unfathomable depth of order. The order could have been superficial, not this staggering interconnectedness. But it could have also been nonexistent. So where does the order come from? And why its it such a deep phenomenon in the universe?

[Fist and Faith]

...processes in the physical universe have patterns which (for some reason we don't understand) can be modeled by mathematical relations...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's either total chaos, or there's not. If there's not, then there are patterns. What type of modeling could those patterns have whose reason we would be able to understand? (The reason for which we would be able to understand. Not sure how to word that.)

That's a good question. I think that it's possible for there to be beauty and order in the world without it necessarily being mathematical.

I don't think I'd put beauty into this topic. There can be beauty without order or math. There can be order without beauty. There can be math without beauty. (Not in the sense that "That's an ugly proof!", although maybe there are such things? But in the sense that some don't find math to be beautiful.) It would seem there can be order without math, but I don't see how there can be math without order.

For instance, think of the shape of a tree, or a beautiful work of art. Not everything can be described with a mathematical formula--and certainly not in a way that can be used to predict the future, like mechanics.

I can't remember the word for the fact that trees, even of the same species, don't have the same number of branches, as opposed to us having two arms. I imagine a tree's DNA allows for a great degree of variability, depending on food, water, weather, etc. Is there any math in that? Possibly not. Just cause & effect.

They say there is no cause of radioactive decay of a specific unstable atomic nucleus. We can predict how many atoms will have decayed in a certain amount of time, but not which. And not merely because we haven't figured it out yet, but because we somehow know it is not figure-outable. So definitely no math there, or in other quantum events. Yet there is math in the overall half-life of the substance.

The options aren't only chaos or math, there's a lot in between.

And besides, I suppose.

After all, sometimes it's very difficult to find a mathematical formula to describe something. But that doesn't mean it's chaos, it's just complex. It could have been the case that the complexity of the universe defied any mathematical description, but this wouldn't mean that it is chaotic. Right now we don't know how to resolve quantum mechanics and relativity. Does that mean it's chaos? It's possible that it will never be resolved into a single formula. That doesn't mean that the order we see is invalid.

Agreed.

Also, the relationships could have been "random" without it being entirely chaotic. Think of the ratio of mass between an electron and a proton. We can describe it in terms of numbers, but we have no idea why that ratio is what it is, rather than something else. All of the patterns in the universe could have been like this, with no underlying symmetry or predictability.

But we don't know that there is no underlying symmetry or predictability. If super string theory is correct, if there are extra dimensions, the Calabi-Yao manifold might only allow specific masses for the electron and proton. Of course, we would then go down to the next turtle, and ask why the dimensions are exactly what they are. But at least we'd know that's why the ratio of mass between an electron and proton is what it is.

(And I've now said possibly everything I know on that topic!)

And finally, the universe could have been chaotic. We don't know why it has order. That's probably the simplest answer to your question. Not only does it have order, but it has an unfathomable depth of order. The order could have been superficial, not this staggering interconnectedness. But it could have also been nonexistent. So where does the order come from? And why its it such a deep phenomenon in the universe?

Right. Extra dimensions or some other explanation, there would still be the question of why that was the case.

[Vraith]

...processes in the physical universe have patterns which (for some reason we don't understand) can be modeled by mathematical relations...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's either total chaos, or there's not. If there's not, then there are patterns. What type of modeling could those patterns have whose reason we would be able to understand? (The reason for which we would be able to understand. Not sure how to word that.)

That's a good question. I think that it's possible for there to be beauty and order in the world without it necessarily being mathematical. For instance, think of the shape of a tree, or a beautiful work of art. Not everything can be described with a mathematical formula-
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[SNIP]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
And finally, the universe could have been chaotic.

On the first and last....
I don't think it is possible to have a universe that doesn't have interconnected orders.
OR...more accurately...any such universe, if possible at all, would have no features we recognize [probably] and no possibility of thing within it that lived/thought.
OTOH, even our primitive models [now that we have machines that can model, though roughly] indicate there could be stable universes with DIFFERENT laws, DIFFERENT arrangements of order.
Maths "work," entirely unmysteriously---if there is any order at all, there are maths that will roughly model it.
The mystery is which...and how...systems will evolve minds that can make and understand that connection. [and its shortcomings].

In the middle...not disagreeing, but I think a stronger and specific example is music.
Because even the rawest, most primitive [most ancient might be better than primitive] has a ton of math-ness in it. Far more, actually, than the bleeding modern edges.
That despite the fact they didn't understand fuck-all about math.
That relationship is fairly strong---many [if not most--I think it's most from the folk I know] math people have deep ties/attractions to music, and many musicians have an innate/intuitive grasp of math conceptually even if not specifically]
BUT---at every stage/iteration/advancement/evolution from the beginning to now, pure and accurate, precise "mathematical" music is extremely boring, jarringly ugly, or both.

And lets remember:
There is [materially] only ONE real reality [multiverses don't change that, just enlarge the set]...at every moment and every place it is hypercomplex...and the NEXT moment/place is [probably] only probable not determined. And YET it is never inconsistent with itself, and never incomplete with itself. It CAN'T be.
Math is abstract/a-material. AND...at each moment/place, they are SIMPLE, not complex. And strictly determined in every possible way. But there are MANY of them, not just one. Good thing, too, because reality CAN't be inconsistent, but math MUST be...and even relatively simple "real" things require more than one math [each with emptinesses and contradictions] to even talk about---not be RIGHT about, or TRUE about, just to COMMUNICATE about---those things.

aside...that's the one thing I agree with Deutsche about without qualms---we WILL be able to understand any and all alien intelligences [[even our own AI which currently seems weirder than folk anticipated]].
Precisely because real is consistent, abstract isn't but real is fluid, abstract rigid. [[[which is, humorously, exactly the opposite of how the artistic/aesthetic is generally talked about...

It won't be EASY, probably, and probably FTL is impossible so it won't matter if we can't understand/get along, and/or dorks decide talking to aliens causes autism, teen pregnancy, and gayness, cuz no one will die...but it can surely be done.

[Fist and Faith]

Thanks to V, I look at the stuff at Quantamagazine. This short video doesn't get into much depth, Z, but I'm pretty sure you'll like it.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-univ ... -20180823/

And it gets me to wondering if any kind of graphing has ever been done on the mind/consciousness.

[Skyweir]

Is consciousness, beyond self awareness ... even desirable? Is it just an evolutionary burden? Is it criiical to intelligence and the operability of the human mind?

The below article is more about AIs but to some degree questions the value and role of consciousness .. outside of the obvious indications of course .. awareness, existence etc. https://theconversation.com/will-artifi ... ious-87231



https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-buil ... i-machine/

www.kurzweilai.net/the-problem-of-ai-consciousness

[Fist and Faith]

We do not do math because of the cause & effect interactions of the particles that make up our brains. Consciousness is something else.

But we can ONLY do math because of those things.
Still, the brain is completely different than a calculator, or even a computer. That's so.

We can "not calculate," unlike a calculator, because no brain state is EVER "add these numbers." Because we don't have one input method, one kind of information, one algorithmic set, one functional mode.

It's a different order, a different category, a different kind of existence.

While one minuscule part is adding [[and it can be wrong easily, there are multiple possible sources of error]] the brain can be performing, IIRC, many QUADRILLIONS of operations PER SECOND on at LEAST a couple dozen [and perhaps many more] different data-streams, on many different kinds of information, using different instruction sets, of which any one or several could be "determined" to be more important than the math---and so end the calculation and reallocate resources [or just take a rest, instead of wasting energy].

You'll stop adding right quick, and for good reason, when a ninja comes crashing through your window. And the stopping and your reaction will occur LONG before your consciousness thinks about it. If it DOESn't happen that way, you are headless [[and your brain might live long enough after the beheading to wonder for a bit about what the hell you did to make a ninja come and take you out---was it your wife, your boss, that blog post you wrote about how boring the Japanese flag is???]]

A "brain state," at any given instant is ALL of that shit AT ONCE. And it changes at the next given instant.

One can make a holistic statistical model of state and flow...

One can even monitor it with various machines.

BUT all the rules of chaos, turbulence, unpredictability, [plus the constant flow of new data/energy into the system] apply---Like the weather, like the butterfly, only unimaginable more complex than mere weather [even than weather plus some avenger of dinosaurs tossing asteroid swarms at you].

Now, I tend to agree that consciousness is something "else," in the sense that we don't understand/can't describe the connection YET.

But the main point, for both the original topic of ultra-intelligent machines and the current, is that it doesn't matter WHAT consciousness is, UNLESS it has causal capacity/property.
Without that, it's far more mythical than Great A'Tuin, and even less useful.

I suppose you're right. But, for now, I'm just trying to understand non-materially reducible activity. How it exists. What is actually happening. Yeah, it could be its "decisions" are the result of an extraordinary set of algorithms. It could be the ultimate vote is thrown by chaos. Could be this, could be that. Still, it is removed from material reducibility, and that blows my mind.

[Zarathustra]

It is mind-blowing, but that is only in the sense that there is a connection between materially irreducible phenomenon and material actuality at all. The fact that there are things that are real but not material is simply a fact. The truths of math would still be true even if there were no material reality. They do not depend upon matter for their truth. I believe the same goes for meaning, or the essence of material reality. The idea of a chair cannot be reduced to any single material chair. It transcends every single chair to encompass all of them, any possible arrangement of matter that we could understand as a chair. This meaning is part of reality. If it were not, we could not willfully design chairs and bring them into being. The meaning, the purpose, the intentional act of fulfilling that purpose--these are real aspects of reality. But they aren't reducible to matter. Meaning itself is irreducible.

But--and this is the mind-blowing part--matter does achieve a connection to meaning through us. Consciousness is the bridge between matter and meaning. Everyone asks, "What is consciousness?" We keep defining it in terms of what it isn't. But I believe this is a big step forward in defining it in a positive characterization. A bridge between meaning and matter. Two irreducible "sides" of reality that, when they connect, result in the phenomenon we experience as consciousness. We are the phenomenon of matter encountering, understanding, and participating in meaning.

[Fist and Faith]

Of course consciousness has casual agency. We intentionally shape our world in ways that would not arise without the conscious, willful direction of matter into the forms that make up our industrial, computerized society. That doesn't happen by the accidental interactions of matter. It happens only by having a "vision" of what you want to accomplish.

Yes. But how does will direct matter?? The vision is useless without a means of making it happen. And the first step to making it happen is picking up the pen, or the hammer, or whatever. How does the mind make the particles that begin the process of moving the muscles move?

Or, if the mind is not a separate thing that can direct the brain and body, but is the brain itself, how is this thing that is materially reducible also not? I don't know how the philosophical community stands on the issue, but I assume this is the case. I don't have anything to base it on. I just don't think a new thing is created. That would be dualism, I guess; a brain and a mind interacting. I think the ions being released into the synapses, and the bio-electrical energy racing down the neurons, and all of the things we can measure and study are, somehow, impossibly, the non-materially reducible mind.

[Vraith]

The fact that there are things that are real but not material is simply a fact. The truths of math would still be true even if there were no material reality. They do not depend upon matter for their truth.

Heh...in "reality," then, there is an infinite variety of non-material math-u-verses, with no Multimath-u-versally true mathematical truths.

Things that MUST be true in any one, or even any also-infinite set of math-u-verses, would be undefinable in others, and HAVE to be false in still others.

And every one of those "entities" would contain Godelian "properties."

I don't have a problem with that being the case. But it's a riot, and as curious/strange as any Alice, in its way.

What you say on consciousness is pretty cool, but....repeating myself I guess...unless the agency mechanism is known/shown, our consciousness/"I"/"we" isn't "participating,"...it is, at best, a totally captive audience/witness.
As I say, I don't think/believe that...but it, by turns, saddens and pisses me the hell off that it MIGHT be so.

[Zarathustra]

Yes. But how does will direct matter?? The vision is useless without a means of making it happen. And the first step to making it happen is picking up the pen, or the hammer, or whatever. How does the mind make the particles that begin the process of moving the muscles move?

Well, obviously there is a connection between consciousness and body, because the brain produces the mind. If that is not problematic (and I'm not assuming this!), then it shouldn't be problematic that there is a feedback loop of some sorts between the two--especially if the mind is not merely some epiphenomenon or illusion. It should be no more problematic that one mental state causes the next mental state (e.g. as in a train of thought playing out) than one mental state causing a physical state (e.g. moving the body to enact a vision), because this is precisely what is happening when mental states cause mental states. That can't happen without mind affecting brain.

Now, the source of bewilderment here seems to lie in the fact that mind is irreducible to matter and yet there is still this connection. How can connectivity and irreducibility both be true? Well, perhaps you are conflating irreducibility with dualism*. The former doesn't imply the latter. Dualism would be two completely different substances that are metaphysically distinct. Mind and body are not, since brain produces mind.

Or, if the mind is not a separate thing that can direct the brain and body, but is the brain itself, how is this thing that is materially reducible also not?

I think that all of reality is like this. All matter and all objects made of matter have both their material being and an essence or meaning. Like I said earlier, a chair is both a particular instance of a chair as well as a member of a class of all possible chairs. It expresses both its own individuality as well as being an exemplar of a general type. This meaning/essence is not reducible to that particular chair or its matter--otherwise, there would be no universality to its essence--but it is also not entirely disconnected from it.


So perhaps the mind is not so unique in this one regard, namely, that it is an example of irreducibility of an aspect of matter. Because the universe has meaning, or can have meaning, all matter has an aspect to it that is not material, or it can achieve this state in the right configurations. Perhaps matter itself is something that "reaches out" into a "realm" that is not material. And I think that is what Nagel was trying to say, that our concept of matter has limited our thinking and created this problem. He argues for a concept of matter that includes mental from the beginning. It might be an inherent property of matter to have this "extra dimension," so that irreducibility isn't a problem. Just as we had to incorporate energy into our concept of matter (e=mc2), so too we may have to incorporate even more radical, immaterial ideas.

Obviously something is seriously wrong with our concepts. We are on the verge of a paradigm shift, like so many before. It will take a radical reevaluation of everything in order to make sense of this.

*[I see you are aware of this very concern later in your post.]

[Fist and Faith]

I don't think matter and all objects of matter have an essence and meaning. I don't think matter has that aspect. We only imagine that has that aspect. I think meaning of this type is only a construct of our minds. I don't think meeting exists outside of minds. If we all died right now there would be no meaning in the universe. Not because we are the universe's meaning, but because we assign meaning to things. But that meaning is fictional. I think, in ways, consciousness is a powerful toy being used by a child. We don't understand it and don't know how to use it. We don't understand our mistakes. We see patterns, and insist it is meaning.

Of course, I could also argue that this IS meaning. This is how meaning is achieved, and it is foolish to consider it in any way illegitimate.

But I'm waxing lyrical, so let's move on.

I would like to think one or more of the extra dimensions of string theory are dimensions of mind. but I've heard the theory calls for ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Of course there is no empirical evidence to support string theory, and the whole thing might be wrong. But if it's right, is it possible they're wrong about the nature of those dimensions? I doubt it. But maybe they don't know the whole story. Maybe one of those dimensions of space is also the dimension of mind.

Yes, that entire paragraph could be out of a Sci-Fi story. But, as you said, something is seriously wrong with our concepts. It's highly - to the highly power - unlikely that I just came up with the real answer. But I'll wager the real answer is no less fantastic.

[Zarathustra]

If you are going to call meaning imaginary, you might as well call the laws of physics imaginary. Do we imagine that physical objects have these relations that can be described with math? Or do they actually have those relations? If the meaning inherent in physical laws is imaginary, then material reductionism would once again reduce to mind as merely another imaginary meaning-- and there would never have been a question that this was a possibility. You can't say that mind reduces to matter if the physical laws necessary to make this reduction are merely imaginary. So if what you are saying is true, then this whole question instantly becomes resolvable. Everything is mind! Everything is imaginary! LOL

Meaning and matter have to intersect, because things don't nearly exist, they exist as particular things. The essence of an object is merely what that object is. A planet is not a star. That is not imaginary. The difference is real. And the class to which planets be long is also as Real and different from the class to which stars belong. These meanings are not imaginary, they are some of the foundational structures upon which the universe is organized. This organization would not disappear if we all ceased to exist.

Let's be careful not to confuse meaning of this type with meaning in terms of the meaning of life or purpose or fate. We do give our lives a meaning by our choices, but that does not mean that the meaning inherent in the universe is entirely given by us. We invent names for things to mark and keep straight in our minds these distinction, but those distinction don't need names to be real. A tree is never going to be a mountain no matter what we call it.

[Fist and Faith]

My problem is with your use of the word "meaning". Yes, physical objects have these relations that can be described with math. Why say that means something? A planet is not a star. How does that mean something? Giving the force that binds protons together so that we can discuss it does not give it meaning. It simply lets us refer to it more easily, instead of saying "the force that binds protons together" every time we want to mention it. Calling something with these characteristics a star, and those characteristics a planet, does not give them any more meaning than they had before we named them. Or before something like us existed to name them.