↪Apollodorus Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian. — Olivier5

Yes, and that civilization surpassed Christian Europe. My above post was too long so quickly I say in this short post, the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is backward people who think they are doing the will of God, not so different from some Christians. War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

As someone noted already, this depends on how you define success. If their goal is to maintain age-old traditions unaffected by foreign influences, they might do well. — Olivier5

That is not exactly what they want. The first thing they accomplished is convincing Turkey to operate the airport. The airport is essential to receive foreign aid and International organizations are scrambling to get those who stayed in Afghanistan and those who have fled, food. The only way to feed the large populations today is with modern technology and never in history have people followed someone when they are starving. No one who has had modern plumbing and understands the control of disease is going to settle for living as people did before indoor plumbing. Bottom line, success means living in the 21 century also throughout the koran there are sentences that support learning such as "God will exalt those of you who believe and those who have knowledge to high degrees". This has a large part to play in the earlier success of Islam.

Islam comes out of an existing civilization and Mohammad was a trader. Succuss in trading and economics is a hallmark of the historical Islam, but not the Taliban who come from the backwoods and have been nomadic. The Sumerian story of Ishmael tells of the difference between those who live in the city and those who do not. We might want to apply that story to what is happening in Afghanistan. Even though the invaders are Muslim, they are not civilized Muslims and I think the International effort to change that region failed because it did not recognize the important difference between the nomads and city people.

History of Islam - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_Islam
Baghdad was home to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, in addition to the growing Muslim population. Like his father, Al-Hadi was open to his people ...
‎Early sources and historiography · ‎Early period · ‎Islamic Golden Age · ‎Islam in Africa

I think it is a mistake to think it is Islam that defines our enemy because the enemy is those nomadic hicks who have lived for war all this time. Another serious problem is they turned male children into warriors and they do not respect women and will be a social problem for a long time. But perhaps we should keep in mind so did the Germans resort to recruiting child soldiers.

slam was successful in the past because it celebrated diversity and pluralism. It practiced religious tolerance. The fundamentalist groups you are talking about are at war with modernism and pluralism and are essentially a savage pietistic reform movement. People keep saying Islam needs a reformation. The problem is Islamic State may be what a reformation in Islam looks like. Stephen Schwartz wrote an interesting book on the nature of Islam's struggle with fundamentalism called the Two Faces of Islam back in 2002. Irshad Manji ( a gay, Canadian Islamic woman) wrote an equally interesting book on the nature of contemporary Islamic intolerance called The Trouble with Islam. It's hard to imagine a successful state emerging from a foundation of captious hatred, but anything is possible. — Tom Storm

That appears to be a well-informed answer. I am impressed. I am also uneasy because the US seems to be experiencing the same intolerance.

War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

It did not happen out of the blue though. It was all borrowed from the Greeks, Persians, and others. And there was a gradual transition (and learning) phase.

When Muslim Arabs conquered Christian countries like Syria, Egypt, etc., that had been part of the Byzantine Empire, they took over the entire administrative apparatus sometimes complete with Christian officials.

The same applies to architects, scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, etc. They did not disappear, they simply adopted Arab names and language and carried on as normal until they were gradually replaced with Muslims. — Apollodorus

Absolutely, what they developed did not come out of the blue, and that is why I do not expect Afghanistan Muslims to do well. I think you hit upon something. Back in the day, they were looking forward and were willing to adopt what they could learn from others. But I think the Taliban and ISIS are looking backwards, and therefore it will not succeed. This time the Taliban pushed away the people who could have helped them move forward.

I think some of them are capable of being good leaders, but their followers value violence and will not become "weak city people". It is like being a gang leader. I am thinking of Weber here and the different kinds of leadership. A gang leader can not betray the gang by not being one of them. They invaded with brutal men who do not know it is not okay to rape and brutalize females and so they had to tell the women what they must do for their own safety. I don't think this will be an easy transition to acting like civilized people.

I think it is exactly because of this brutal male instinct that the Koran speaks of protecting women and treating them well. Unfortunately, it takes more than a holy book to civilize people.

"New Human Rights Watch research shows that the Taliban have been training and deploying children for various military operations including the production and planting of improvised explosive devices (IED). In Kunduz province, the Taliban have increasingly used madrasas, or Islamic religious schools, to provide military training to children between the ages of 13 and 17, many of whom have been deployed in combat." This is a problem for a civilization with females. Age matters and the age of these fighters is not apt to lead to civilized behavior.

From a historical perspective, the Taliban and ISIS are comparable to the "primitive" tribal barbarians, who sacked Rome, bringing an end to a world-wide military empire, but releasing & spreading the energy of a new world-dominating Imperial religion. At the time (circa 410 to 455 AD) the Vandals (etc) were disorganized & uncivilized, but fierce & hungry & bloodthirsty.

Centuries later, many of us on this presumably modern & civilized forum are descendants of those uncouth barbarians, So, there is room for hope that Afghanistan can recover from decades of being squeezed between the rock of dug-in defensive intolerant Islamic tradition, and the driving force of forward-leaning & aggressive Western Capitalism. Yet, it remains to be seen, if this sacking of a remote outpost of capitalist imperialism, will be followed by an adaptation of money-driven Western notions of civilization, or by a resurgence of the Islamic brand of sword-won colonialism. Or, perhaps to a re-flowering of the Golden Age of Islamic philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon

I totally love a historical perspective. If Islam regains its glory, I do think that will happen in Afghanistan because they are not coming from a civilization. Nomadic people do not develope civilizations. It is city living that develops civilization but as you said, those civilizations can fall.

So a (small) contribution provoking more clarity of purposes, no? — 180 Proof

No, the only thing disrespectfulness will get is negative.

↪Bitter Crank

I am arguing to include employers as agents who can and do enforce strict obedience to their authority. In a different thread I'd argue that workers need more power to resist employers.

That’s very true, though I think it is much easier to change employers than it is to change state authority. — NOS4A2

Yes, the US modeled its industry after Britain's autocratic order and it follows that the US is more autocratic than democratic.

There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. In 1958 the US stopped transmitting its culture and that leaves only authority over the people for social control.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. And the philosophy in my opinion is neither chauvinistic to my knowledge and is full of practical wisdom. What do you mean it falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning. What science are you referring to. Greek and Roman Stoic philosophy has many similarities with Buddhist philosophy. They may have influenced each other as a result of Alexander the greats conquering of the Middle East and the fusion of Greek and Eastern culture in the Hellenistic period
37 minutes ago — Ross Campbell

I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments".

Greek logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. That means asking the question "How do things work?" What is the "cause and the effect"? It is concerned with what we now call science and religion is not. Philosophy can help us make good moral judgments but does not help us understand our planet and how to manifest all the different parts of a city or protect endangered species.

A sophist's notion of 'wisdom' – a syllabus of self-help nostroms. — 180 Proof

How do you think that put-down contributes to the thread?

Let us assume that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe, but different from ours. It also develops from a simple to a more complex state, sense organs arise and a sort of a central processing system, but again completely different from ours. Let´s assumethat the sensory impressions these beings receive does not at all overlap with how we perceive the enviroment. With one exception: like us these beings differentiate between an outside world theire conception of it.
Now the question: Do we share at least the fundamental logical rules of inference with these beings, who perceive so differently?
If not, that would mean that even most fundamental building blocks of thinking are dependent on experience and experience itselfe would in turn depend on the way sense organs developed.
But if we share the same logic with these beings regardless of the experience we have, the question arises as to where logic comes from?
This could mean that even the most specific factors that determine our thoughts are inherent (so far undiscovered) properties of the matter we are made of.
Both conclusions don`t really get us anywhere. What objections are possible? — Mersi

The most fun thing about philosophy is the questions that are asked. I want to applaud you for asking such an interesting question.

That said, I think what would make a difference is not a difference in the ability to perceive, but rather a difference in what is perceived. We have a very simple earthly example. The Mongols originated in a very harsh environment where survival very much depends on cooperation with others and hunting. Deadly storms mean locking someone out of your shelter could lead to that person's death, and next time it could be you needing shelter in a storm, so it is important everyone agrees to help each other survive. Stealing and lying can also be serious survival issues, so the punishment for either is death.

Genghis Khan thought city people were very immoral. He saw the difference in wealth and poverty as intolerable and leading to lying and stealing. Cities developed where life is good and with a little effort farms produce an abundance of food. The farming mentality is very different from thehunting mentality. Genghis Khan stopped killing everyone and razing everything to the ground when a man from China taught him to harvest the cities like a farmer.

Genghis Khan was aware of a sky god who just assume kill pathetic humans. While in the valley where cities first developed people believed in a goddess/god that takes care of them. Genghis Khan thought that was a pretty silly idea, and he continued to prove the Mongols were mightier than their God. If the people refused to pay him tribute he left a message about the will of God. Leading to Christians fearing it was the will of God that sent the Mongols to punish them for their sins and making them even more powerless to defend against the Mongols.

Bottom line, it would be our environment that leads to different logical conclusions, not a difference in the ability to perceive information.

I will vote for Buddhism over Christianity. However, Buddhism can be filled with demons and gods and it can be chauvinistic. It also falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning.

That was just to say, that your example of child cannot do math is not relevant or sensible in the arguments by giving you the contradictory case. It is just a logic. — Corvus

That was not logic, it was a stupid argument. We are not born with knowledge of math or anything else. We only have the potential to learn. When we are knowledgeable we gain the ability to create math and comfortable beds and high-rise apartments, etc.. The more knowledge we have the more we can learn. It took mankind millions of years to get to where we are today. Our capability to fill our heads with knowledge is not different but because we know more we can understand more. However, now we have unrealistic expectations of children and locking them up in classrooms and expecting them to learn what they have no interest in learning is not healthy.

I'm trying to point out that in the process of exchanging information two interacting systems get changed. Change is the necessary thing that needs to occur for information to take effect between any two or more substances. When we look at something it is not immediately clear, that this changes us physically by changing our neural patterning. ...........No the universe does not have a neural system, it incurs a physical change otherwise. — Pop

Awe, the word "effect" makes all the difference. We are all trying to exchange information and only rarely do we have the pleasure of success. The information can be all around us but that does not mean it affects us.

There are some child prodigies who can do high level calculus. — Corvus

I am done. Not even a child prodigy would do simple math without a teacher. Mathematical concepts do not automatically come with being human. Only the potential to learn comes with being human.

Yes. without that form, there would be no information. It is the fact that something has form, that allows us to interact with it. The form changes the patterning of our brain somehow. This change that the form imposes on our brain patterning, at a subconscious level, embeds us in a meaningful exchange with the object. If mind is a state of integrated information, then a disturbance to that state is more information.

If we accept that information is fundamental, then this process of mutual change between systems ( objects, people ) is what happens in every transaction that can possibly happen in the universe at any scale. Information enables the interaction of form - says to me: because something has form it is able to interact with another something that has form. A change in that form is information.

If something has no form, then it has no information - so cannot effect a change in our neural patterning. — Pop

I am good with what you said up to the last line. Why did you have to add the term "neural system?" Does the universe have a neural system?

Just looked up my Dictionary of Philosophy for "Logos". It says - Greek, statement, principle, law, reason, proportion.

It derived from the verb "lego" which denotes "I say".
Therefore, I say and confirm that Logos comes from language. — Corvus

And human, when broken down to its root meaning, means moist soil, That means contained in our word human is the belief that a god made us from mud, but few of us are aware of that. And to stop at the root of logos being connected to the spoken word and dropping its meanings of being a principle, law, and reason is a failure to understand the meaning of logos. That law meant universal law, not man-made law, and a democracy is supposed to build it isn't laws on an understanding of best reasoning and universal laws, but in our ignorance, we don't know that.

Logic, maths, deductive knowledge don't need experience. 1+1 = 2. You know it instantly without having to experience anything. — Corvus

No, a child does not automatically know 1+1 = 2. It takes a lot of work to get a child to understand the concepts of math. There are primitive tribes today that do not have the ability to count above the number 3 and it took us centuries to understand the importance of the zero.

I think what animals do for their survival is their instincts, not reasoning. The logos original meaning is for language. — Corvus

You may think that but how much have you studied the subject of animal thinking and communication?

Where do you get your information about the original meaning of logos? I am looking for a reason to believe you know what you are talking about, versus you just heard something and came up with an idea you believe is true. The reason it rains is not because a god says rain, fall from the sky. The reason for rain is more complex than that, and that is logos.

Reason for all things is in the universe, because humans explained them via observation, analysis and theorising. — Corvus

No, the reason of all things in the thing. Humans may or may not come to understand the reasons. We do not have global warming because humans reason this is so. We have global warming because the conditions are right for that, and it is our task to discover the reason. Science is discovering the reasons, not creating them.

Sure. This is a huge topic, and I am sure there is plenty of online information for it.  But what I normally take their meanings for are,
Reason is unique to humans, and is a faculty of mind, that when presented with problems, it (reason) produces knowledge or conclusions without having to rely on experience. (foundations for logic, mathematics knowledge, deduction)

Empirical knowledge is knowledge or conclusions coming from experiences.  With learning, observations and tests, empirical knowledge increases. (all scientific knowledge, induction)

Information is generated via the above 2x faculties of the human mind working together towards producing tailored, organised and arranged knowledge system about objects and events in the universe which are useful for human life, or meaningful for human intelligence. — Corvus

Without experience, human beings would not be as they are and they would not be able to function in the man-made reality we have created. Higher-level animals learn from each other and this is essential to their survival. Humans have created huge vocabularies that make it possible to think about many things, such as what is the difference between reason and empirical thinking, and a great ape can not, and would not, get involved in such a discussion.

I am really curious about how well the Taliban will do when they have control of Afghanistan because I don't think they know much about the modern world and things like managing the utilities of a nation so that everyone has clean water and electricity. Organizing a nation requires more than fighting for power and the Taliban have a lot to learn about the modern world. Humans are born only with the capability of learning, not with the ability to reason that must be learned and their ability to learn has a window of time. Referal children will never be as normal people if their windows of learning close before they are found.

If you think the controlling force of the universe is reason, then I feel that you are stretching the concept of reason too wide.  The universe works the way it does, because that is what they do, you cannot ask why. Because they will keep silence to your questions. It is humans, who have been observing the workings of the universe, and found the universal laws out of the workings of the universe with the application of human reason, and have been explicating how and why the universe work the way they do.  IOW the universe does not have reason like humans do. — Corvus

Asking why is fundamental to reasoning on a human level. Studies of Bonobo indicate they can think abstractly and reason but they do not have the richness of language that we have. Language has made human reasoning much more than the reasoning of animals. The degree of how much more complex our thinking is, depends on our vocabulary. People who have very limited vocabularies can not argue as we are doing.

The reason of all things is in the universe as @Pop explained. The communication of that reason is in the form, not words. Animals perceive the reasons essential to their survival and react accordingly, Higher-level animals must learn and the social ones learn from each other. Lions by their social nature have a higher IQ than solitary cats that do not learn from each other, and democracy makes the highest IQ possible because it is inclusive of everyone's thinking.

So you seem to be confused between reasoning and empirical learning from the start. — Corvus

Hum, how is reasoning different from empirical learning? I get that not all reasoning is empirical, but I would not say empirical learning is not reasoning.

this is all that ever happens in this universe ( that information causes change to form ), and it is a precondition for the universe. The Universe, to exist, needs to have form, and needs to be interrelated and connected, acting upon itself and giving form to itself. Hence all of its component parts are in the same act, including ourselves. The definition : "Information enables the interaction of form", describes the role of information in the universe. It is a fundamental quality / quantity - connecting a formed universe that is interacting and evolving.

I'm trying to get at the fact that information is present in every transaction in the universe ( this being a result of it being fundamental ) but we are normally blind to it, and this thread largely remains blind to it :angry: — Pop

That seems agreeable with the notion of logos and when you study the information that is in the form, you can be conscious of it, right?

from there we have an interaction, and this interaction causes a change in form ( change in the properties of the system ) - when we look at a rock, we experience a change in our neural patterning.

I am not sure of that statement. It is possible for something to be in our sight without seeing it and :lol: lately, any change in my head is very temporary. Part of the complexity here is understanding logos involves how our brains work :lol: or don't. It is just as important for us to filter out unnecessary information as it is important to perceive necessary information and when we learn something new, we have to forget the old. :grimace: that can make adjusting to change very challengingly. But that is also a different subject from the information is in the form.

As I have said before, I will say again. The rock for the geologist to study is just some physical substance with molecules and particles. The geologist will break it and look inside of the rock, and look into the patterns and shapes of the interior of the rock to come to some conclusion on how old the rock is, and what type of rock it is. OK. I don't think that is information in the rock at all. It is just a physical entity with the observable property for the geologist. And the geologist has observed it, and constructed the intelligent data about the rock.

When the observed data had been established with the analysis and expertise of the geologist into some sort of useful and intelligent and organised data, we could call it, then information. But what is just in the rock itself prior to that process is not information. I would like to draw the line in that.

It doesn't matter what all the other scientists or writers are saying in their books and websites about these things. We philosophers shouldn't be blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts without the critical philosophical analysis based on our reasoning. I don't think the physical processes and how they do these things are even in the slightest interest of philosophy. The detailed knowledge on the physical process and structure of the instructions are the topics of science, not philosophy. Philosophy does not go to the fields, observe, investigate and analyse the physical processes of the objects in the universe. Its operations are performed on the abstract concepts on the objects by reasoning.

Philosophy must be able to point out these irresponsible uses of blurred concepts by the scientists who are borrowing and mixing the abstract concepts by their instincts. IOW Philosophy shouldn't be brushed under the same carpet as those sciences, because Philosophy is a different subject in nature and its operations from all other subjects. It's duty is to criticise and clarify all the abstract objects and concepts in the universe. — Corvus

Oh, oh I am afraid we have an argument of conflicting ideas. Every creature on earth must perceive and use information for survival. I also think the planet and sun can share information but that is going too far for "normal people". Our concepts of god are very different when we believe information is in the rock or believe it is only information if a person thinks it. Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. For me, that does not mean there is reasoning being, but that things are as they are for a reason, and it is up to us to learn that reason. Which also leads to a notion of predetermination versus quantum uncertainty.

I so disagree with your reasoning and it is weird how people can have totally different understandings of the same thing. Geologists read the earth and get the earth's story. That is the ability to understand the information that is there. To think it isn't information until we put words to it, is incomprehensible to me. Like oh my gosh, your preception eliminates the reality of animals also perceiving and using information for their survival. I can not think like that because my way of understanding reality is so different from yours.

Wow, science is not blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts. :gasp: Are you one of those people who refuses to wear a mask and get a vaccine? You sure do seem to present their thinking, and this is fascinating to me. How many times do you have to prove to yourself the truth of what science says or do you disregard it all? I think we would be stuck with a very primitive reality if we could not trust what others think. But do you trust the Bible is God's truth? Excuse me, but your line of reasoning reveals a lot about people's completely different senses of reality and what is believable. That makes this thread extremely interesting.

A scientist is not thinking with instincts. Everything is tested and reviewed by peers and then the facts become an agreement on the best reasoning. But it does not stop there. New information will lead to a review of old facts, and that stated fact will be changed if there is better reasoning. Understanding this is very important to understanding democracy. I wait with excited anticipation for your explanation of the way you see reality and if you are a religious person or not.

Sorry that must have been confusing. I'm trying to define information, and you said something that made me realize that information is causal. In monism, rocks have their neural correlates - the usual counter is that correlates are not causal, BUT information is!

So I realized from your comment that information causes neural correlates.....Thank you. :up:

↪Athena Information in the third person point of view is an internal representation - which you are talking about.

Information in the first person point of view is a causal process - the qualities the rock possesses travel via light waves to effect a change in our neural state. Thus informing us physically.
a day ago — Pop

Wow, this is a challenge. I still don't think I am getting your meaning. I looked for the meaning of "casual" and got this "not regular or permanent". Is that the correct meaning for the way you use that word? Information is not regular or permanent?

That does not make sense to me, because some information is eternal but a rock mountain may wear away. I am thinking we can learn something about the rock by using ultraviolet light or grinding it into a powder, or by applying chemicals to it. :lol: If we use oil shale rock to build a fireplace, we can watch it burn like coal. That had to be amazing to the first people who found burning rocks. My point is we can read nature and learn about the earth's elements and apply what to learn to study the universe. The information of everything is in it, what we can learn depends on our ability to perceive. Does that work with what you are meaning or is there a gap between our understandings? I am feeling like my tie to the spaceship got broken and I am drifting with no connection to your thought.

You speak of information we can see, but we can also smell information, and if we can't smell the milk is sour, and drink it, we will taste if it has gone sour or not. I am probably strange, but it absolutely fascinates me how an odor becomes information. It is easier to understand how what we see becomes information we can use. And perceiving things through touch is a totally different experience. That is really experiencing information. Am I lost in space or do my words make sense?

Information is causal!!

Rocks have their neural correlates, because information is causal ! I think we are getting somewhere? — Pop

Ouch, I am not understanding what you said. Can you reword that?

From my perspective, the information is in the rock if we are conscious of it or not.

I think everything is up to interpretation. And if we agree God is out of the boundary of human reason, then it is comforting for some people to base all the mysteries and unknowns to him.

But still, information is something that people seek, provide, supply and use. If something is information, then it cannot be unknown. If something is not unknown, then it must be able to be demonstrated and verified when required. If it cannot, then it is a myth and speculation. — Corvus

Everything might be up to our ability to precieve and our interpretation of what we perceive, but to think that covers everything that can be known, is a bit presumptuous. Because our consciousness is limited to our perceptions and vocabulary there is far more that we do not know, than what we know. To think we know God's truth, and God's will is pretty presumptuous because we do not experience that. That puts God outside of our comprehension and it is a huge mistake to not be aware of that. This is an edited insert. I am not saying there is a god, only that if there is a god we can not know that god because we can not experience god.

How about this, information is what is. A geologist can read the earth's history in the rocks. Information is everything in the universe, and our ability to perceive and understand it is growing, but thinking information is what we possess instead of what there is to learn, is a mistake.

think you need to consider what 'biosemiosis' means (and I'm not an expert by any stretch, I've only learned about the concept on this forum and readings from it. The Wikipedia definition is 'Biosemiotics (from the Greek βίος bios, "life" and σημειωτικός sēmeiōtikos, "observant of signs") is a field of semiotics and biology that studies the prelinguistic meaning-making, or production and interpretation of signs and codes and their communication in the biological realm.[1] — Wayfarer

I won't quote everything you said because we can refer back to it. I just want to say those thoughts are totally awesome! Now my brain is so overstimulated I have to take a break. There are not words for expressing how much I appreciate your explanation for the Greek words and reasoning, so I will just say thank you plus 100 times thank you.

Where there seem no reasonable answers to the questions, it is our tendency to rely on God for the answers. If you are a theist, you would accept it. If not, then it is unlikely you would accept it.
It is a question that has two possible answers. One is that it is unknown. The other is God wanted it to be. Saying unknown sounds there is no answer. Saying God wanted it sounds like it is at least an answer. But in essence, they are the same answer. — Corvus

:lol: That would not be so bad if that god were an unknown god instead of a god-like Zeus who has human qualities. Doesn't the bible say God is beyond our comprehension, and then along comes Jesus and we get a god we can know because He is like us. Our relationship with the Jesus god is very different from our relationship with a god that is beyond our comprehension. Interpreting the bible abstractly is completely different from interpreting it concretely.

Oh no, there is another complication! Is our understanding of information concrete or abstract?

Heck, let us really complicate things, Daniel Kahneman explains different mental functions as fast and slow thinking. Fast thinking isn't actually thinking. Fast thinking is a knee-jerk reaction to stimulus. Fast thinking is a reflex. Education for technology favors fast thinking, and that is a disaster for democracy.

Slow thinking consumes a lot of energy and we would not have enough energy to make it through the day if we were in slow thinking mode for most of the day. Saying God wanted it, is to avoid thinking. Serious thinking can be as a walk through Hades, a place we must all go to search for the meaning of life events, but we should never go there without the help of the gods, because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. Lost in Hades means to suffer mental dis ease. Christians avoid that by turning everything over to God and trust in the will of God and the power of prayer.

One metaphysics to rule them all! — apokrisis

You kind of lost me in the explanation of why humans don't agree on the correct information, but I love your use of the concept of fractals. Hum, when the main character of the movie "Inside Out" enters the door of abstract thinking, the 3 characters who entered, started to take different and changing forms. They risked no longer being themselves. Might we say that abstract thinking is chaos that takes form and that form changes? As someone said in this thread, new information changes the thought/ concept of reality.

Because the notion of logos is so strong in my head, my thoughts keep coming back to it. For me, that would be the one metaphysics rule, but it would be a shapeshifter too like the abstract room in the movie. I think we want truth to be one thing and only one thing, but that is not the way it is.

Robin Williams, "reality, an interesting concept."

Religion is an attempt to make reality consistent and unchanging. Science is constantly changing our notion of truth and reality. We have to love Aristotle for giving us the concept of metaphysics, that which is beyond physical limits. :lol: My head is like the abstract room. I attempt to reply to posts and come to realize I don't know what I think because my thinking is a constantly changing process.

But really, the science of how to stop the spread of disease is not new. Somehow turning that information into a religious/political issue, is nuts! I know our environments and limited exposure to others, shapes our thinking, but (strong pagan words) shouldn't it be pretty easy to agree on scientific truth? It is logos, information on the physical level. We need to keep the abstracts of religion and politics out of it.

In that case, what follows is, nature made / caused events or entities are not meaningful in terms of human intelligence, perfect form or logic in its purpose or design.

Nature caused events or entities have been happening randomly without aim, purpose or plans. We can explain the physical cause of the snowfall using the other elements such as humidity, temperature and air pressure, but that is not snow itself.  It is the condition for snowfall, and there is no way to explain why snow flakes looks the way it is without citing God's will.

In that case, I wonder if it could be related to information which is based on predesigned and thought out plans, practical purposes, human intelligence and meanings in abstract form or linguistic content. — Corvus

The first sentence made sense to me. The second sentence makes sense to me. The third sentence makes sense to me. The first half of the fourth sentence makes sense to me. Concluding that it is a god's will that a snowflake takes the shape it takes, does not make sense to me.

Why throw in a god's will or a question of intelligent design?

Biology is finding that enzymes rely on quantum uncertainty to amplify their ability to make desired reactions happen. Life and mind thrive on zones of instability because they can master that free energy to do work - give the randomness of big fluctuations a cohesive direction that then builds, and keeps rebuilding, the same material structures.

So the usual notion of stable entities is that they are composed of stable parts. A house is built out of bricks and not jelly.

But an organism is a machinery that thrives on zones of instability as it has the means - the information - to just keep rebuilding itself. That is why life thrives in hot sun, intertidal zones, volcanic underwater vents, and anywhere else that there is lots of unpredictability and so the basic raw material to feed a machinery that can turn that into the predictable. — apokrisis

I totally love what you said. Just yesterday I was reading about wind evaporating water and releasing heat. I need to find that information again and add it to what you said. The transfer of energy is mind-boggling to me and here we are speaking of a transfer of information as well. In fact, I am feeling overwhelmed with information and need to take a break and digest all this. I want to pull out a book and see if I can improve my understanding. What if 70% of our population lived to learn and felt intense pleasure in the process, rather than bashing each other over stupid things, watching WrestleMania, and spreading gossip. It saddens me to know not everyone loves what we are doing here.

he American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.

Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms). — praxis

I really appreciate what said and especially that definition of Liberal Education. However, I see your interpretation of it is not the meaning of my words that I intended. I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I said we should rely on a "higher authority" other than our own inner higher authority? :gasp: I think in general all civilized people rely on traditional values and norms to some degree. That is the meaning of being civilized. I would say not everyone among us is civilized and they are controlled by laws and fear of punishment to some degree. That is not the same as doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, civilized people and educated and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination. — praxis

What you said may be true of members of religious groups, but religion is not the only core model of life. This is perhaps the most important point to me. The other core model for life in a democracy is a culture built on liberal education. When this was the primary purpose of education in the US we had a strong and united Republic. That education ended in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act. We stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. That is a complete disaster! Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to universal education when education meant a liberal education because he understood that is the only way to have a strong and united Republic and to protect our liberty. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. We dropped the culture, leaving us with only authority over the people, and this is destroying our democracy.

I need to clarify, if our schools were transmitting the necessary culture for democracy and liberty, we would be as united as religious groups. We would be forming organizations to resolve our problems as people did when fraterities, unions, and granges were popular because schools would prepare everyone for resolving problems in this democratic way. The dependency would be on ourselves, not the government over us. Not only would we be empowered as Tocqueville said the citizens of the US were but we would be meeting our human needs in a way no government can do. Without a united effort to transmit a culture, we are no longer united by a culture. Leaving only churches to meet the human needs, and perhaps forums like this one. We are not sharing a culture here, but at least we can talk about that. Where else can we meet and discuss what is so and what should be, and our part in all this?

I am not sure but it seems to me the discussion is too limited to language. Information is the stuff of the universe and the stuff of earth. It is there for us to study, and we will learn more if we ask good questions, but the answers will be verbal explanations.

In relation to what I asked early about some people rejecting explanations of why we should wear masks and get vaccinated. In the media, I hear some people have a totally different understanding of covid and over crowded hospitals when they experience fighting for air and when they can not get medical help because the system is overwhelmed. Words alone do not necessarily convey the information that needs to be understood. Much of our information comes from experience.

What — Corvus

What would be difference between a wood carver carving away his mental image in his brain into a woodspirit carving, and something taking physical shape in the universe via / caused by "information"? Could they not be simply described as the same form of manifestations?

Are there reasons that one is a process or entity caused by information, and the others by sheer chance (heavy rainfall in Indonesia or avalanche in the Alps) or an artistic / economic labor of a guy carving the wood to produce a woodspirit that he intends to sell on eBay? — Corvus

I would say there is a difference between a nature-made object or event and a man-made object of event. This is where I part with Plato and perfect forms. I think the universe just throws it out there and what happens to it depends on its interaction with other forces. Such as the shapes of snowflakes are influenced by the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. A snowflake is not a perfect form created by a mind such as human objects are created by a mind. There are universal laws, but not universal pre-determination. Whereas a man creating a statue begins with a rough idea of what the finished product will be.

I see. If one considers language as a mode of communication, it needs to be about reality and that invariably requires language to capture causality. Causality, as we all know, true or not, is permutationally sensitive (order matters). In fact, all human enterprises seem to be wholly cause-effect oriented. — TheMadFool

Just as a matter of argument, what is happening here? No matter what the reasoning for wearing masks, there are some who do not accept the scientific evidence and insist, mandating wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is not what science says it is, but is a government threatening our liberty because those at the top want the power to control us, and we must oppose that threat. Here information does not mean the same thing to everyone. What can be done about this? To me, it is completely mind-boggling! It is like telling someone not to drink from the well because it is polluted, and people throwing stones at you because they think you are trying to control them. Huh, for information to be useful we must trust each other and if don't trust each other information is just a lie, not truly information. :brow:

Yes, the old dialectic of logos and flux is another version of the same essential position. The Cosmos is about how logical order becomes the shaping hand that reins in chaos. And yet you need that lack,of order as the basic thing to then have something to rein in. This makes the whole system, the larger relation, a unity of opposites, — apokrisis

↪Athena I think as we explore the full meaning of information we will find it is the currency that enables the whole cosmos. — Pop

The thought that comes to mind when reading those replies is chaos is essential to creativity, but total chaos would no form, and manifestation is dependent on functioning form. Evolution requires mutant genes, but all living things come with DNA and a mechanism for stability. Oh my goodness the ancients are looking incredibly aware to me, as they spoke of chaos and the need for order. The pharaoh's job was to keep things in order because too much water or not enough to lead to famine, and so on. Mayans were consumed by the importance of numbers and dates. Chinese I Ching too. Yet if there was no chaos there would be no change, no creativity, no evolution.

Does quantum physics come to the rescue? It gives us uncertainity.

The grand project would be pansemiosis. The Cosmos would in fact have to have its own organismic point of view. — apokrisis

That is a totally fascinating post. I am amazed by how important words are. We can not discuss something without a word for it and you have used words in a most interesting way. I hope to return to your post later when I have time to ponder it. To me, you seem to be speaking of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. Is that close to what you are talking about?

Quite close to Claude Shannon's - father of information theory - own thoughts but with one small difference: not just change but also the degree of change as in more extreme the change, the greater the information content in a message that relates that change. C'mon, mathematize information and this is bound to happen. We need to quantify something. Why not measure the extent of the change (from the baseline)? A rough marker that this is how ordinary people actually view information is the sales figures of so-called tabloid news. I believe they sell like hot cakes. — TheMadFool

Good point. Not all information is true. You have tapped on to the emotional/social reason for seeking information. That is really something to ponder.

I think you guys have won me back from another forum that is just beginning. I wanted to be in on the beginning of a forum, but it does not have near the depth of thinking that happens here. You all are awesome!