So what about my comment that I posted near the top of Page 2, part of it pasted below:

"I find it interesting that information is suggested as being fundamental. In Computing, information is a composite of the labels data and meaning. Raw data has no meaning. 25 is raw data, 25 apples, is data with meaning, and is therefore information. Data is unlabeled, so how can information be fundamental if it is made up of 'parts.'
Perhaps 'data' is fundamental and 'meaning' is fundamental" - Universeness

How about meaningful data is fundamental?

If meaning is fundamental, wouldn't that imply a mind?

But consciousness is neither an object, a substance or a property, but a relational activity

.

I have always understood, that the naturalist view, is that consciousness is an emergent property. You are saying that it's not a property, but a relational activity. I've never heard that.

It's the ingredients of consciousness that is said to be fundamental. Someone here offered another perspective, that information is fundamental. I think information would be more accurate, or it least it reduces it a little more.

I'm hung up right now though, on this idea that there necessarily had to be something there (a pre-existing mind) that knew how to assemble this information into self awareness. Unless we posit that all of it somehow knew how to do it, as though each piece is a self existent fractal of the whole.

What I think I mean, is that there is an objective truth that A=A, that things are what they are, and that would be true in any possible world that came into existence through random happenstance.

A=A, the law of identity, a thing is what it is, is an immutable truth. There are objective truths in this universe, in this reality.

I may have gotten lost there. The content of this thread is way over my head. I'm not really sure if I answered anything or contributed anything valuable to our exchange.

Let me think about that and get back with you. I appreciate your time.

A would still equal A in any possible world that could have arisen by random chance.

Could you rephrase that please?

If it were true random happenstance, then no, I don't see why there would need to be a mind either. It just happened. Rationality sprang from irrational forces. Minds that seek truth emerged from forces that know nothing of truth.

Quarks and electrons already contain the seeds of consciousness. They tend to like one another or hate one another. Already at that level there is the dual at work.


A dual duel?

I would like to understand what Joshs said here:

it reifies it by installing the dualism within each bit of objective reality.-Joshs

Does your statement above coincide in any way with what Joshs stated? His statement was very condense and it resonated like a riddle.

Thanks.

So substance is a form of being, not stuff. Would it be conceivable that matter is ultimately composed of ousia?

"Substance" is not "stuff"? This is interesting. Could you explain that a bit more?

it reifies it by installing the dualism within each bit of objective reality.

When someone gets a moment, would you mind explaining this like you're explaining it to a six year old?

Oh, btw, just for reference, here is an article talking about quantum stuff being in two places at one time.
I think it may have bearing on the topic at hand. Not really sure just yet how, but if things can be in two places at one time, then to me at least, all bets are off. It's not a huge leap from there to say that the universe itself is a mind.

https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020/10/need-be-two-places-once-it-may-be-possible#:~:text=Quantum%20physics%20has%20demonstrated%20that,also%20exist%20in%20multiple%20places.

Hmmm. Information is fundamental. But wouldn't there still need to be a mind to to "know" this information, as well as to "know how" to execute it?

Unless all matter and space in the universe foreknew in some sense...like it somehow has the ability to communicate regardless of what shape it ultimately takes. I've heard that quantum particles can be in two places at one time.

Panpsychism does not propose that quarks are in themselves conscious or neurons are conscious but that the 'ingredients' of consciousness exist naturally in the Universe due to vast variety and vast combination over an evolutionary period of natural selection of around 14 billion years. Consciousness has now evolved to the manifest stage that is exhibited in the animal world and most successfully within lifeforms such as humans. - Universeness

If consciousness is fundamental, that doesn't mean that knowledge is fundamental. Wouldn't there have had to be something like a mind that knew how to arrange these ingredients in such a away to give rise to awareness?

Panpsychism doesn’t solve the hard problem, it reifies it by installing the dualism within each bit of objective reality. -Joshs

Would you mind rephrasing that? It's quite intriguing.

It has been said that panpsychism solves the hard problem of consciousness. I can sort of understand that. If the hard problem of consciousness involves the mystery of how something immaterial (mind, perception, thoughts, etc) can arise from something material (the physical brain), positing consciousness as fundamental, you at least don't have so great a leap to explain things. You go from something that is essentially conscious, giving rise to consciousness. It doesn't seem as absurd as saying that that the immaterial mind arose from physical matter. If that physical matter was composed of some small indivisible unit of experience, then it's at least within the realm of plausibility.

I've never understood Schrödinger's cat. You put a cat and poison in a box, and at some point, the cat will be alive and dead at the same time.

Can you explain this to a 6 year old? I will be the 6 year old of the forum here if anyone wants to bounce any ideas off of me.

Also, are the numbers on unscratched lotto tickets in a state of superposition?

Thanks for taking a stab at that. I just made that term up. Sometimes phrases will come to mind that I think hold some key to further understanding. It's just a weird quirk of mine.

Does the term skeuomorphic ontology mean anything to you? Any sense can be applied to both of these words.

Or rather, if such a concept were valid in some sense, what could it mean?

What would it mean if I say, for instance, that the liars paradox was a skeuomorphic ontology? What sense could be made of that? This term could be applied and superimposed on any other concept. But what could it mean do you think?

I was thinking perhaps it would be true (or false for that matter) if you just stopped and didn't ask the next question in the infinite regression that the liars paradox creates.

Is there any evidence that other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness, like the heart for instance? This seems to be an accepted idea in certain eastern schools of thought.

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.

What does the above mean, anyone?

I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?

Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have?

Quick question here:

Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence?

Hello. Quick question here. First post here in the forum btw:



How will science know what it is like to be something?

How will science objectively know a subjective experience?

Or is this what science is even hoping for?