Strangely enough, many physicalists would actually say that you agree with them. If the mind is merely "what the brain does" it is ontologically not different from, say, digestion, which is a process that the digestive apparatus does. — boundless

Yes. Physicalists are aware that material bodies have immaterial functions (processes), such as Life & Mind. But they view the real Matter as fundamental, not the ideal Mind. Idealists, on the other hand, would also agree that objective physical bodies have subjective functions that cannot be seen or touched, but only inferred rationally. Yet they differ in their understanding of which is essential : spiritual Mind or physical Matter. My Reality includes both Subjective and Objective elements.

Therefore, my holistic BothAnd*1 interpretation avoids the contentious reductive Either/Or debate, by adopting a moderate inclusive position like Aristotle's pragmatic alternative to Plato's "spiritual" Idealism. Ari's HyloMorph hybrid includes both Physical and Mental aspects, without making a god-like assertion of which is more elementary. My 21st century version of HyloMorph is EnFormAction. Instead of Plato's pure heavenly Form, it suggests that, like Energy, EFA swings both ways : Causation & Constitution, Mind & Matter, Structure & Substance, Process & Purpose, E = MC^2. ☯︎

However, the 'feeling', the qualitative experience itself is not accessible to a public perspective. It is private. — boundless

Again, the debate between Physicalists and Mentalists hinges on which is more important : public empirical Matter or private theoretical Mind. Since I don't know the Mind of God, I simply assume that both Body and Mind are important to human philosophers : No body, no mind ; no mind, no philosophy. :wink:

If you think about it, a dead body differs form a living body in the structure rather in the 'stuff' it is made of. — boundless

Yes. A structural engineer deals with Ideal structure in the form of relationship diagrams, but a builder has to haul around Real structure (e.g. steel beams). But both are necessary to create a building on an empty site : the mental plan and the material building ; the abstract design and the concrete implementation. BothAnd. :grin:

I don't think that 'vital force' can be thought to be a 'physical quantity'. As I said, rather than a 'force' or a 'substance' it is more useful to think about an 'order', a 'structure'. — boundless

Empirical Energy is defined in terms of an abstract physical quantity, even though a Volt cannot be seen or touched, but inferred in qualitative terms : an ability, capability, potential, etc. Likewise, a Vital Force can only be known in its effects.

For example, to convert a dead lump of matter into a dynamic animated structure of flesh & bone. Remember the Miller-Urey attempt to create life by zapping inert chemicals with electricity. Or picture Frankenstein attempting to animate a corpse with lightning, then exclaiming "it's alive!". Both mistook physical quantitative electrical Energy as a metaphysical qualitative Vital Force. :cool:


*1. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I wouldn't say that 'mind' is a 'function'. Rather something more like an 'inner' aspect of an entity. In other words, you can't detect qualitative experience ('qualia') precisely because the mind isn't 'public' like the body. — boundless

When I said that Mind is what the Brain does, thinking & feeling, I was taking a Functionalist stance instead of a Substance position on the Hard Problem. A function emerges from doing. The "inner aspect" notion could mean that Mind is like the Soul, an immaterial add-on (spiritual substance) to the material body ; or it could merely refer to a feature or function of the human body/brain. An "aspect" is simply a way of looking at something. So, I guess we're just quibbling about words, about appearances : how things seem to the observer. :smile:

The ancients viewed the 'soul' as the 'life principle'. So, a 'soulless' body is a dead body because its 'form' is incompatible with life, not because the body has lost 'something material' that could be detectable. — boundless

When you say "its form is incompatible with life", I read that its conceptual design is lacking some essential feature or factor (the right stuff)*2. I'm familiar with Plato's and Aristotle's usage of the term Form to describe something similar to the mathematical description, or conceptual design, of a material body. But I tend to favor a more modern understanding of the underpinnings of reality. Whereas Aristotle mixed material Hyle and immaterial Morph to produce the things we see in the world, I prefer to combine causal Energy and meaningful Information into a vital force (EnFormAction)*2, that evolved from a primordial burst of Energy (Big Bang) into the living & thinking features of our current reality. This does not invalidate Ari's hybrid stuff, but it's just a more up-to-date way of describing how Life & Mind --- both invisible & intangible, known (detectable) only by what they do (their function) --- emerged from eons of material evolution. :nerd:

Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable? — Gnomon
Are you sure that they aren't comparing perhaps information to the 'patters' in which energy is stored and transferred rather than to 'energy' itself. — boundless

Yes & no. Actually, "information" is merely the "pattern" by which we know things and ideas. Our modern understanding of Energy is not as a material substance, but as a wave pattern in the universal quantum field of relations. Since that grid-like pattern is not a material substance, but a set of inter-relations, it can transform from one thing into another (E = MC^2). Energy is a causal relation that produces form-change in matter*3. :wink:


*1. "The mind is what the brain does"is a popular phrase summarizing the functionalist view in philosophy and neuroscience, meaning mental experiences (thoughts, feelings, consciousness) are the activities and functions performed by the physical brain, much like pumping blood is what the heart does. It emphasizes that the mind isn't a separate entity but emerges from complex neural processes, where brain injuries can alter mental states, linking them inextricably.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+is+function+of+brain

*2. The Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness : So I'm guessing that the non-sentient precursor of Mental Processes (e.g. linguistic) was more likely the non-spatial, massless stuff of Causation : Energy E in all its forms. Note that E = M C² has no symbol for matter. Even Mass M is only a mathematical measurement of resistance to Force, and C is a cosmological constant, not a measurement of a material object. Therefore, I can agree with both sides of the Matter-Mind argument, but with a twist : massless, spaceless Energy is capable of transforming into both Matter and Mind. But Consciousness is not a "separate, non-physical entity", it's an active meta-physical brain Process⁷, with no mass or inertia.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Energy as a pattern refers to the observable, often fractal or dynamic, arrangements and flows of energy in nature, technology, and psychology, such as toroidal flows in atoms/galaxies, branching systems in biology, cycles in human productivity, and predictable forms in code, all revealing underlying structures and processes that govern how energy organizes and moves. Recognizing these patterns helps us understand systems, from cellular function to climate dynamics and personal well-being, showing that energy isn't just a quantity but a fundamental organizer of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+as+pattern

But we only know this within our frame of referents as observers. You're removing an observer, than adding something an observer would include back in. — Philosophim

Yes. That something added back-in, on top of what actually is (from a divine objective perspective), is the seeming of human inference. Steven Hawking did not believe in a creator God, but he used the god-concept as a metaphor to illustrate what a universal observer might see*1. Apparently, even atheists aspire to know what is top-down, instead of observing reality from the bottom-up, and inferring only what seems to be. :smile:

Right, we are observers who measure what is independent of us. My point is that we cannot be observers without the notion of something independent that we observe. Under what logic can we say that if we remove observers, what is independent of us will also cease to be? — Philosophim

Yes. Although we humans are integral elements within the Cosmos, the universe-as-a-whole can be construed as physically independent of us parts, and seems to have gotten-along fine without us for over 13 billion years. But, I suspect that might have a different concept of the omniscient omnipresent Observer, similar to the God in the Quad limerick*2. :wink:

Logically, time as a qualitative concept or 'change of states' would have to be as that is independent of us. Our measurement of that independent state would vanish, but not the independent state itself by definition. — Philosophim

Yes, again. Qualia (what it's like) are inherently known & felt from a personal subjective perspective. But idealist philosophers, since Plato, have striven to imagine what-it's-like from the impersonal perspective of an omnipresent observer. Is that reliance on rational inference a human failing, or the mark of god-within-us?

Some idealists, such as Bernardo Kastrup, view "God" as not a separate being (or observer) from humans, but the universal Mind in which we human beings participate*3. I'm still chewing on that extra-hard-problem of Consciousness, as I read Federico Faggin's book, Irreducible, in which he refers to what physicists call Universe (one all-encompassing physical circle)*4, as simply The One (cosmic consciousness or metaphysical circle) : there is no separate Other. Personally, I've never experienced the qualia of being one-with-god. :nerd:


*1. To Know the Mind of God :
Stephen Hawking concluded that God did not create the universe, stating "there is no God" and that science provides a more compelling explanation for existence through natural laws, arguing the universe could spontaneously create itself from nothing due to laws like gravity. He believed that once we understand the complete theory of everything, we would "know the mind of God," but this mind wouldn't be a human-like being, and he ultimately identified as an atheist, seeing religion as an outdated attempt to explain phenomena now understood by science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physicist+to+know+the+mind+of+god

*2. Limerick on Berkeley's omnipresent observer :
God in the Quad
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

*3. Participation in God-mind :
In idealism, God is often seen not as a separate creator of matter, but as the ultimate Mind or Consciousness within which all reality (including the universe and humanity) exists as ideas or perceptions, providing ultimate grounding, continuity, and structure to existence, with thinkers like Berkeley suggesting God's constant perception maintains the world when humans aren't looking. God becomes the fundamental reality, the source of all knowledge, and the ground for objective moral laws, making the world a manifestation of divine thought rather than purely material substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+god+perspective

*4. SUB-VERSES WITHIN ONE CIRCLE

We can measure this quantitatively with time, but the qualitative concepts still exist without our measurement or observation. — Philosophim

Maybe the difference, between your concept of Time, and Wayfarer's, can be demonstrated in a poster's screen-name : Esse quam videri*1 (to be rather than to seem). God-only-knows (metaphor) what actually IS, from a universal-eternal perspective. And a scientist or philosopher only sees (observes) a narrow view (to seem ; appearances) of Ontology. Neither perspective is fully objective. So we can only interpret sample measurements, and infer or imagine or guess how that evolving aspect of Being would appear to omniscience : its cosmic function and meaning. Einstein inadvertently summarized this distinction in his Theory of Relativity and the Block Universe model.

Therefore, as I interpret 's intent : we humans only know how Time seems (subjectively) to us star-gazing animals, who measure Change in terms of astronomical or historical events*2. But the universe is, compared to us earthlings, near infinite. Therefore, based on the incomplete information of our native senses, and our artificial extensions, we can only know how Time appears to us (subjective observers) from our ant-like perspective. Even methodical & mathematical Science can only approximate what Time is*3 for the practical purposes of dissecting reality. But overweening philosophers and cosmologers attempt to read the Mind of God.

Consequently, quantitative scientific-measurements-of-appearances, and qualitative philosophical-inferences-of-meaning only tell us --- "late arrivals in the long history of the universe" --- how Cosmic Change seems to us, not how it absolutely IS, beyond the scope of our measurements or meanings. Wayfarer openly acknowledges the practical utility of quantitative Time, but on this forum, prefers to focus on its qualitative features & functions : how it seems to time-bound eternity-imagining creatures. :smile:


*1. Esse quam videri is a Latin phrase meaning "To be, rather than to seem."
Note --- In this context, I interpret the phrase as a reference to Absolute ontological Truth (to be), as contrasted with Relative experiential truth (to seem).

*2. What is Time : In philosophy, time is explored as a fundamental dimension, a mental construct, or an illusion, with major debates focusing on whether it's an absolute container (Newton) or relative to events (Leibniz/Aristotle), and if only the present exists (Presentism) or past, present, and future are equally real (Eternalism), questioning its flow, reality, and relationship to change, consciousness, and space. It's viewed as the measure of change (Aristotle), a framework for our minds (Kant), or a feature of the illusory world (Advaita Vedanta), often contrasting physical time with our subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+%3A+what+is+time

*3. In physics, time is a fundamental quantity measuring the progression of events, the interval over which change occurs, and a dimension in the spacetime continuum, treated as the fourth dimension.

Personally, I think that I am mind and body. As an analogy, think of a 'plastic bottle'. The 'plastic bottle' is both 'plastic' and 'a bottle'. Neither of them describe what a 'plastic bottle' is in its entirety. And you can't 'reduce' one into the other. — boundless

So you do distinguish between the material (plastic) and it's function (bottle). Materialism does try to "reduce" mind (function) to brain (matter). But we don't have to deny the substantial role of Brain in order to discuss the essential role of Mind. Holism is Both/And not Either/Or. :smile:

Interestingly, in Christian theology the 'human being' is complete if both 'soul' and 'body' are present. Anyway, the dualism of Aristotle and the Christians wasn't like Cartesian dualism. The latter asserts that the 'mind/soul' and the 'body' are different substances. Aristotle and the Christians held that they are two essential aspects of the same substance.
This is quite close to my own view. — boundless

I agree. A Soul without a body is a Ghost. And a ghost is an incomplete person. I've never met a person with only a body/brain, or without a soul/mind. But Christian dualism views the Soul as distinct from the body*1. In other words, a body without a soul is dead meat. In my own musings though, I try to avoid getting into theology, by using scientific terms where possible. Hence a human Person is more than a body/brain, she is a complex adaptive system of physical Matter and metaphysical Mind. So, mind without body is a disembodied spirit, and body without life/mind is road kill. Note that I combine Life & Mind to imply that those two functions are on the same continuum of Causation. :cool:

I can see that. But IMO 'energy' isn't the right thing to appeal to for 'form'. I believe that Bohm and Hiley's 'active information' is much more congenial to your purposes. — boundless

My use of the physical term for causation, Energy, is merely for ease of understanding in common language. In my thesis, physical Energy is merely one of many manifestations of general universal EnFormAction*2. Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable?*3 :nerd:

Both 'light' and 'matter' would actually be forms of 'matter'/'body'. Their structure perhaps is something more understandable as 'form'. — boundless

I would prefer to say that both light and matter are emergent forms of Energy/Causation*4. Photons are often imagined as particles of Matter, even though they are holistic Fields of Energy that have the potential to transform into particular bits of matter. The "structure" of a Field is mathematical/metaphysical, while the structure of Matter is empirical/physical. Anyway, I too understand both physical arrangements and metaphysical patterns as different configurations of Platonic Form. But our materialistic language makes it hard to express those concepts without sounding abstruse. :wink:


*1. "Soul as substance" views the soul as a fundamental, independent entity (substance) that constitutes a person, distinct from the physical body, often described as an immaterial form or principle giving life and identity, prominent in philosophies like Aristotle's (as the body's form) and Christian thought (as an immaterial, personal essence). This contrasts with viewing the soul merely as an emergent property or function of the brain, proposing it's a real, enduring entity that can potentially survive physical death, forming the basis of substance dualism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=soul+as+substance

*2. EnFormAction : A term coined specifically to indicate that physical Energy is a particular form (manifestation) of a broader concept of Causation that includes Information. It is similar to Bohm's Active Information, but also to many other causal & consciousness concepts over the ages.
"They are all subsumed under the thesis-coined concept of EnFormAction (EFA), which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient & modern hypothetical notions of evolutionary emergence such as Stoic Vitalism, Spinoza’s Conatus, Bergson’s Elan Vital, Schopenhauer’s Will-to-live, and A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy." https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Information is Energy: Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Energy-Definition-physically-information/dp/3658408618

*4. Photon is Form : A photon isn't a traditional "state of matter" like solid, liquid, or gas because it's a massless particle of pure energy, the quantum of light, exhibiting wave-particle duality. While it's not matter (which has rest mass), it carries energy and behaves like a wave or particle, making it fundamentally different from objects with mass, though it's sometimes described as a "massless particle" or part of a "photon gas" in extreme conditions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+state+of+matter+is+a+photon

I will argue that time itself is inextricably bound up with observation, and that this is the seat of a genuine paradox  -  one that an appeal to the geological or evolutionary facts, taken on their own, does not resolve. — Wayfarer

This will be an interesting thread, but I doubt that it will lead to a true or false conclusion. That's because human language is intrinsically materialistic*1. I suspect that ancient philosophers, especially Plato & Aristotle, understood that physicalist prejudice, and tried to develop a special metaphorical language for exchanging knowledge obtained by inferential Reason instead of by sensory Observation. Aristotle's both/and hybrid term Hylomorph --- real material (hyle) and ideal form (morph) --- may have been intended to overcome the linguistic bias toward public objective denotation over private subjective connotation*2. Some TPF posters seem to assume that literal (physical) definitions are necessarily true, but metaphorical (metaphysical) meanings are, if not absolutely false, then somewhat ambiguous, equivocal, and vague.

Even Time's Arrow*3 is an interpretation, not an observation. We see multiple instances and infer post hoc, ergo propter hoc. From observations of Quantum Physics, scientists have found that mental & mathematical measurements of time are ambiguous, even though our human stories of Time & Change tend to be unidirectional. For example, I have no personal experience of time prior to my birth, but society views birth as the first step toward death. And modern science typically portrays cosmic time as a near-infinite thermodynamic downhill run from low Entropy (order) to high Entropy (disorder) in terms of Energy digression. On the other hand, traditional historians have usually described the passage of time in terms of Hegelian dialectic, with an overall direction of progression. Even our word for ongoing Change, Time, is typically defined as irreversible succession of events from past to future.

For most practical scientific applications, the conventional progressive meaning of Time is useful. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, the meaning of Change is debatable. :nerd:



*1. The phrase "language is materialistic" suggests language isn't just abstract but deeply tied to physical reality, social structures, and material practices, moving beyond simple representation to actively shaping and being shaped by the world, seen in how words become physical (writing) and how language use reflects/reinforces economic systems, bodies, and cultural values. It's a concept explored in theories like new materialism, viewing language as an embodied activity embedded in concrete social situations, not an isolated system
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+is+materialistic

*2. Denotation : the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.
Connotation : an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

*3. The arrow of time in physics refers to the unidirectional flow of time from past to future, a concept coined by Arthur Eddington. While fundamental physical laws are time-symmetric, our experience shows time's irreversible march, primarily explained by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases, defining the thermodynamic arrow of time (e.g., an egg breaking, not unbreaking). Other arrows include the cosmological arrow (universe expansion) and quantum arrow (wave function collapse).

My own view is that mind and the body are more like two 'sides of the same coin' rather than two separate things. But, again, there is so much unknown...
I'm not a fan of the 'software/hardware' analogy because it risks to lead us to either anthropomorphize machines or to think that we are 'like machines'. — boundless

So you don't distinguish between the living and thinking aspects of your being? Do you think you are all Mind, or all Body? The all-body view, with Mind minimized as epi-phenomenon, is known as Materialism or Physicalism. Yet, that physical-only perspective limits your ability to do Philosophy of Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics.

That's why the early philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle adopted the worldview now known as Dualism. Aristotle tried to avoid Supernaturalism though, by postulating two different kinds of Substance : Hyle (matter) and Morph (form). Ironically, early theologians labeled those substances as physical Body & metaphysical Soul. However, I have adopted a 21st century version of Aristotle's Morph, with the modern concepts of Energy and Information*1 in place of Plato's supernatural Form. That way, I can have the best of both worlds : physical Science (hyle) and metaphysical Philosophy (morph).

You could say that my version of the Mind/Body duality is also "two-sides of the same coin". But in this case, the "coin" is Causal or Active Information*2*3, in the same sense that Energy can take-on the radically different forms of both Light and Matter (E = MC^2). To get into that complex unconventional worldview (Reality + Ideality) would require a separate thread. :wink:

PS___ Metaphorically, we are like machines, except in the sense of self-consciousness : knowing that we know. AI knows a lot of stuff, and uses self-reference, but it will admit that it doesn't feel what it's like to know itself.


*1. En-Form-Action is a metaphysical concept, primarily discussed on philosophy forums, that describes the inherent power or process within the universe to transform potential (information, design, essence) into actual (form, structure, matter), acting as a bridge between pure information and physical reality, often linked to physics concepts like \(E=mc^{2}\) but with deeper philosophical implications about creation, causality, and the nature of mind and matter. It's seen as a "creative power" or "intentional causation" that drives evolution and complex arrangement, proposing a deeper layer to materialism by integrating information/ideal forms with the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- this is a Google AI overview, not my words

*2. Causal Information theory blends information theory with causality, using concepts like information flow and conditional independence to quantify relationships, discover causal structures in data (like causal skeletons), and understand how much control one variable has over another, moving beyond simple correlation to identify directed influences, especially in complex systems like turbulence or deep learning, offering tools for causal inference where experiments are hard. It provides measures like "causal information gain" (reduction in uncertainty from intervention) and is used in AI/ML for robust generalization, with applications in analyzing neural networks and designing experiment
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=causal+information+theory
Note --- Useful for the "hard" problem of Consciousness.

*3. Active Information Theory isn't one single theory but refers to concepts where information isn't just passive data but an active physical entity influencing reality, notably in David Bohm's quantum physics (information as activity), and in Active Inference (ActInf), a framework where agents (like brains) minimize "surprise" (prediction errors) by updating models (perception) and acting on the world (action) to maintain existence and reach expected states. It bridges perception and action, explaining how organisms predict and interact, often linked to minimizing free energy and updating internal generative models, with applications from neuroscience to robotics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=active+information+theory

Yes and No. Yes, because in some sense the 'hardware-software' two different 'aspects' of a computer. However, 'no' because it suggests that human minds and computer softwares are more similar than what they are. It doesn't seem the case that computers have qualitative experiences and deliberation. — boundless

The hardware/software metaphor --- figure of speech --- for the human brain/mind is intended to evoke similarity, not sameness or identity. I did not intend to imply that computers have qualitative experiences. In fact, the book I'm currently reading --- Irreducible, by computer scientist Federico Faggin --- is explicitly intended to deny that materialist implication. Unfortunately, his philosophical counter-theory might not appeal to you, and I have difficulty with it myself. But it would be appropriate for this thread, if somebody else wanted to defend his model of brain as receiver of consciousness. :smile:

Here's the problem of 'mixing' concepts of different contexts. Yes, the 'hard problem' is very relevant. But there is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time. . . .
It is good to be aware of that before taking speculation as 'scientific evidence'. — boundless

Are you implying that I don't know the difference between Physics and Philosophy? Are you mistaking my philosophical metaphors for scientific facts? This is a philosophy forum, so why would I be making empirical assertions? Do you think I should refrain from speculation on The Philosophy Forum? I'll let you argue with Faggin --- inventor of microprocessors --- about the "role" of consciousness in quantum physics. I find his "speculation" hard to believe, but I can't deny that his detailed reasoning points in the direction that the OP found hard to accept : that Consciousness is not generated by the brain, but received from an external source.

in the early days of Quantum Physics, the "mixers" of those empirical & theoretical concepts were "hard" scientists, who were also trained in "soft" philosophy in European schools*2. They were clearly aware of the difference between evidence and speculation, but they combined those categories anyway. Later, Richard Feynman, who denigrated philosophy, advised his students to "shut up and calculate"*3. On the other hand, the policy of The Philosophy Forum might be "shut up and speculate". :nerd:


*1. A metaphor compares two different things by saying one is the other (e.g., "Love is a battlefield"), creating a strong, direct connection, while a simile says one thing is like or as another (e.g., "Love is like a battlefield") using "like" or "as" for a clearer, less forceful comparison, both aiming to highlight shared qualities without being literally true, unlike an analogy, which explains a complex idea by showing how two things are similar in a more logical, extended way (e.g., brain is like a computer)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphor+similar+not+same
Note --- Philosophers are not scientists, and don't deal in empirical Facts, but in imaginary metaphors, similes, and analogies. But on this forum, some posters cross the line in the opposite direction from your warnings to "be careful". Asserting that computers can think like humans, including the experience of Qualia.

*2. Werner Heisenberg One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg viewed science and philosophy as inseparable. He saw his uncertainty principle as a reflection of the limits of human knowledge and was influenced by philosophical ideas in developing his theories.
Erwin Schrödinger A Nobel-winning physicist, he also had a deep interest in philosophy, and his famous cat thought experiment was designed to highlight the counter-intuitive philosophical implications of quantum theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+scientists+trained+in+philosophy

*3. The phrase "Shut Up and Calculate!" is often misattributed to Richard Feynman; it was actually coined by physicist David Mermin to describe the pragmatic, instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics, which focuses on mathematical predictions rather than deep philosophical interpretations, though Feynman also expressed skepticism about understanding quantum mechanics' deeper meaning, advocating a similar focus on results. The saying signifies relying on quantum theory's powerful predictive tools (like the wave function) without getting stuck on its baffling conceptual paradoxes (like measurement), a method Mermin later acknowledged as incomplete but effective.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shut+up+and+calculate+feynman
Note --- In other words, leave the "conceptual paradoxes" to the feckless philosophers. Ironically, Pragmatism is a philosophical attitude, and approach, to controversial & confusing ideas. But Faggin goes beyond the empirical evidence to conclude that quantum physics has a deeper meaning than the pragmatic, results oriented, instrumentalist approach. Are you warning me to avoid such heresies to scientific Truth? Or would you agree, that the fact that quantum physics is the foundation of modern technology, does not deny that it has "deeper" implications for philosophy?

My 'suggestions' do not come from a 'scientistic' perspective or anything like that. Rather, they come from a desire to clarify the use of concepts in their own context. To make another example, the 'software' of a computer isn't like our mind, in my opinion. — boundless

In a technical "scientistic" context, computer software does not work like the human mind. But in a philosophical (metaphorical) context, the human mind's relation to the brain is analogous to the software of a computer. Can you accept that notion, for the sake of philosophical reasoning? :chin:

Again, I believe it is useful to clarify where the 'science' stops and where 'philosophy' begins. Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role. And those who do assign a role to the 'observer' generally believe that the role is purely epistemic, — boundless

Again, you seem to be seeking a hard line to distinguish empirical science from theoretical philosophy. But in practice, those categories overlap ; making the dividing "line" difficult to draw. For example, Einstein was a theoretical scientist, not an empirical technician*1. Someone asked him, "if you're a scientist, where is your laboratory?" He smiled, and simply held up a pencil. So, his revolutionary ideas --- challenging classical physics, and opening Pandora's Box of quantum physics --- went beyond the current ability of lab-rats to verify or falsify. So, was he a hard scientist, or a soft philosopher?

When you say, "Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role."*2, you are ignoring the many scientists (Kristof Koch, et al) who affirm that the human mind is unique in nature. Hence, the "hard problem" of science. And you are taking sides in a long-running philosophical debate, that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence. So yes, the human mind is "purely epistemic", and not empirical. Hence, philosophical, not scientific ; and appropriate for discussion on a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. :wink:


*1. Albert Einstein was fundamentally a scientist (a theoretical physicist) whose groundbreaking work in relativity and quantum mechanics profoundly impacted science, but he was also deeply engaged with philosophy, especially the philosophy of science, questioning core assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics, bridging the gap between the two fields. While not a professional philosopher, his philosophical mindset drove his scientific inquiries and led him to comment extensively on life, morality, and humanity, making him both a towering scientist and a significant philosophical thinker.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+philosopher+or+scientists

*2. Role of Mind is an epiphenomenon : That statement reflects a prevalent viewpoint within the physics community, where most physicists argue against the 'mind' having a special or non-physical role in the universe [1]. This perspective generally aligns with physicalism or materialism, the philosophical stance that everything that exists is purely physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Many+physicists+would+deny+that+the+%27mind%27+has+some+kind+of+special+role.
Note --- As the quote indicates, the dismissal of Mind as a real phenomenon is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical belief. Those -isms are belief systems, not factual statements*3.

*3. Materialism is fundamentally a philosophy, but it strongly influences (and is often confused with) science, acting as a foundational assumption for much of natural science by asserting only matter and physical laws are real, though critics argue this stance is limiting and doesn't fully explain consciousness or subjective experience, pointing to an "explanatory gap" between matter and feeling. While materialism (the belief that only matter exists) underpins much scientific inquiry by defining what's investigable, it's a metaphysical stance, not a testable scientific theory itself, and some argue science can progress better with broader philosophical perspective
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+is+philosophy+not+science

Not sure why you would say this. I am neither against religion nor philosophy. What I want to point out is to be careful to 'mix' them with science. — boundless

Nor am I. But the 17th century Enlightenment revolution (Age of Reason) tried to draw a hard line between rational Science & emotional Religion, between empirical Physics and theoretical Metaphysics. Thereafter, "soft" Philosophy was typically lumped, by hard rational scientists, into the off-limits Religion category. And that Mind/Matter segregation worked for several centuries. Eventually though, 20th century Quantum Physics turned the Either/Or hard line into a Both/And probability wave. Today the Matter/Mind line of distinction is between Hardware and Software, but the mechanical stuff doesn't work without the mental stuff.

Why I would say that you are afraid of crossing that line in the sand? It's because you repeatedly warn me to be "careful". But I don't accept that arbitrary division of Philosophy into Nature and Supernature. For me, it's all Science and all Philosophy, and Nature includes both Mind and Matter, both flesh and emotions. The human Mind (consciousness, "soul", software) seems to be a product of eons of material evolution. So the study of the intangible, immaterial aspects of Nature should not be taboo for Science or Philosophy*1.

Physics may try to limit its subject matter to Matter only. But Quantum Physics made that policy of apartheid very difficult*2. So, I don't accept that, no longer valid, distinction between Matter Science and Mind Science. Which is why I label my personal philosophy as BothAnd*3. :smile:


*1. Mixing science and philosophy involves using philosophy (like logic, epistemology, metaphysics) to clarify scientific concepts, guide research, interpret findings, and explore implications, while science provides empirical data to inform philosophical questions about knowledge, reality, and ethics, creating a symbiotic relationship where philosophy shapes the 'why' and 'how' of science, and science grounds philosophy in reality. This interplay, historically linked as "natural philosophy," helps refine scientific methods, address biases, and understand humanity's place in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mix+science+and+philosophy

*2. Yes, quantum physics explores the link between mind and matter, suggesting consciousness (mind) influences physical reality (matter) through concepts like wave function collapse and the observer effect, where attention changes outcomes, leading to theories like the "quantum mind" that propose consciousness isn't just a brain byproduct but a fundamental aspect of the universe, influencing matter's emergence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+includes+mind+and+matter
Note --- The "line" between Mind & Matter is described as a "link" not a divide.

*3. BothAnd vs Either/Or Philosophy :
The BothAnd philosophy requires holistic spectrum thinking instead of reductive & exclusive, black/white, & all-or-nothing reasoning. It assumes that the thinker has no privileged god-like perspective on the world, but instead, a private relative point-of-view. So, its conclusions are not absolute Either/Or, but more like probable Bayesian beliefs. Yet, why would anyone prefer the uncertainty of Probability (maybe-maybe not) to the confidence of two-value (either/or) reasoning? Some philosophers aspire to a complete & perfect Ideal model of the world, but others are content to construct a more realistic interpretation of the data & facts available to human observers.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note --- Materialism is a hypothetical & idealized model of the natural world, which somehow evolved Minds capable of inferring natural laws and ideal models.

Yes, but I'm still convinced that you're reading too much into the concept. Note however, that this doesn't mean that your metaphysical outlook is 'off' or anything. — boundless

Again, you seem to be afraid of crossing the Enlightenment line between Science and Religion. But Philosophy is similar to Religion only in its focus on the non-physical (mental, spiritual) aspects of the world. Philosophy has no Bible and no Pope. So each thinker can be a rogue priest. My childhood religion was antithetical to Catholicism, in that it downplayed rituals & miracles, and focused on reasonable verifiable beliefs. I still retain some of that skeptical rational attitude, even though I no longer congregate with those of "like precious faith". In fact, Faith is a four-letter word for me.

Nothing in here and in the reference you quoted go beyond the 'realist' interpretation that is admissible in physics. But despite the appearances it isn't like a 'potential' in the metaphysical sense. — boundless

Before I retired, my education was mostly Pragmatic & Realistic. And my only college course related to philosophy was Logic, but that was a math requirement, and not very philosophical. Even though I am now exploring some Idealistic concepts mainly associated with Philosophy, most of my reading sources are professional scientists, not academic philosophers. But if I "go beyond" the bounds of materialistic Physics, my direction is influenced mainly by astro-physicists (cosmologist), such as Paul Davies, and Quantum physicists, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Max Planck. If you are interested enough to invest some time, I can show you how 17th century notions of practical Potential became idealized & philosophized in the 20th century*1. :nerd:

I dispute the fact that these philosophers had what we label as 'energy' in mind when they talked about 'dynamis', 'energeia' and 'potentiality'. These concepts might have inspired later physicists to develop the concept of 'energy' but they aren't necessarily referring to the same thing.
Also, this doesn't mean that these ancient concepts are wrong. — boundless

Of course, the primitive philosophers 1500 years ago, did not have the detailed scientific knowledge of the 21st century. So, their concepts were more general & visionary than our modern technical details. So, as you say, "those ancient concepts are not wrong", but they are more philosophical than physical. Speaking of "physical" can you define Dynamics, Energy, and Potential in material terms --- without using abstract philosophical notions such as "capacity", "ability", "causal" & "essence"? What is Energy made of? Where can I find Potential in the real world? :wink:

Yes, hence the confusion. Actually, I believe that physicists themselves should be more careful in how to explain the concepts they use. . . . .
I say 'controversial' because it is unclear if such a concept is amenable of scientific research or if it still purely philosophical. — boundless

Again, you seem "careful" to draw a hard line between Physics and Philosophy. But, especially since the quantum revolution, Physics was forced, by the Uncertainty Principle and the indeterminacy of quantum phenomena, to resort to philosophical reasoning for descriptions & interpretations of the real world's ideal foundation*4. Physics is no longer purely mechanical, nor purely philosophical, but a complex adaptive system of both. :cool:


*1. The word "potential" maintained its core meaning of "possible as opposed to actual" across both the 17th and 20th centuries, but its usage evolved significantly, particularly with its development as a specific scientific term in the later period.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+17th+century+20th+century
Note --- That "later period" was the era when Einstein's Relativity, Shannon's Information, and Quantum Physics revolutionized the science of Physics. Possible does not "go beyond" Actual & Real, it is a priori and Ideal. Potential is not a physical thing, it is a Metaphysical concept.

*2. Energy : In essence, while energy's definition (ability to do work) remains, quantum physics reveals its granular nature, probabilistic behavior, and mathematical description through operators and wave functions, revolutionizing our understanding of the microscopic world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+quantum+physics

*3. Yes, quantum physics is deeply intertwined with philosophy, especially the philosophy of physics, because its strange findings (like superposition, non-locality) challenge our fundamental understanding of reality, causality, and knowledge, forcing physicists and philosophers to debate interpretations of what the math truly means for the universe, moving beyond simple "shut up and calculate" to explore profound questions about what exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+is+philosophy

*4. Quantum idealism connects quantum physics's strangeness (like wave-particle duality and measurement problems) with philosophical idealism, suggesting reality isn't independent but depends on observation or mind, proposing that physical properties only manifest upon interaction. While early founders like Bohr and Heisenberg hinted at this, modern physics often uses decoherence to explain collapse without consciousness, though some philosophers and physicists still link quantum phenomena to mind-dependent reality or information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+idealism

You're free to use the word 'energy' in a way that is different from the way it is used in Physics. However, you might encounter a problem when you try to equate the two concepts or say that they are equivalent in some sense. I was just pointing to this.

Ironically, I actually believe that a 'non-realist' view of physical quantities actually is a problem for some forms of 'metaphysical physicalism'. — boundless

Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of Philosophy itself. Humans have been puzzled by the mysterious invisible cause of physical change for thousands of years. Primitive notions of Animism*1. imagined that living things were motivated by some spiritual agency, similar to the invisible wind that causes trees to sway & tremble as-if internally energized.

The ancients viewed Causation as purposeful. But modern Physics*2 imagined Energy as some intangible eternal property/quality of inert temporal matter that could be quantized (a quart of vacuum) for practical applications. 19th century pragmatic Science conveniently ignored the ultimate Cause of Change, and focused on the proximate instances of Transformation. Do you think we should not equate Energy with such creative processes as Metamorphosis (form change) and Evolution (physical change over eons of time)?

Ancient Greeks began to formulate primitive ideas about Causation & Change that would later influence modern physics. For example, Plato talked about dunamis (dynamics) and energeia (power). Even pragmatic Aristotle*3 characterized what we now call Energy, as un-actualized Potential seeking to become real in a process-of-becoming called Telos (purpose or goal).

Modern Physics uses the same old terms, but avoids any teleological or philosophical implications. Early on, quantum physics imagined Energy as tiny billiard balls, called Photons. But eventually, scientists were forced by the evidence to define the fundamental level of physics, not as tiny particles of matter, but as wishy-washy waves in a universal Field of potential (statistical) mathematical relationships.

Practical Physics is content to say that "sh*t happens", as long as it can quantize each event. But Theoretical Philosophy goes beyond observations of what happens to ask "why?" Are Energy & Causation & Transformation "unreal"*5 for you? :smile:


*1. Animism is a worldview, often found in indigenous cultures, that believes spirits or souls inhabit all things—living and non-living, like animals, plants, rocks, and rivers—giving them a spiritual essence, volition, and power, contrasting with Western ideas of separate mind/matter, and viewing the world as interconnected, where appeasing these powerful spirits through rituals maintains balance and well-being. It's seen less as a specific religion and more as a fundamental way of relating to a world full of conscious, experiencing entities, where human life and natural phenomena are deeply intertwined, influencing health, fortune, and history.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*2. In physics, energy is the fundamental property of matter and systems that quantifies their capacity to do work or cause change, existing in diverse forms like kinetic (motion), potential (stored), thermal, chemical, or electromagnetic, and crucially, it's a conserved quantity, meaning it can transform but never be created or destroyed, only converted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*3. In philosophy, "energy" (from Greek energeia) originally meant activity, actuality, or being "at work," a concept developed by Aristotle to describe something in motion or fulfilling its function (telos), contrasting with potentiality (dynamis). While modern physics defines energy quantitatively (ability to do work), philosophical uses remain broad, encompassing mental/spiritual forces (psyche), vital life forces (pneuma, ka), and the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, linking to ideas of consciousness, being, and transformation beyond just physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*4. Causality in philosophy explores the fundamental relationship where one event (cause) produces another (effect), investigating what makes this link real, how we know it, and its role in explaining the world, moving beyond mere correlation to understand necessary connections, agency, and purpose, a concept debated from Aristotle's Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, Final) to Hume's skepticism about observing actual force, highlighting its importance for logic, science, and understanding reality's progression.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+causation

*5. Metaphysics isn't "real" in the sense of a tangible object, but it's a fundamental, "real" branch of philosophy exploring the nature of reality (existence, mind, time, causality, etc.), using logical reasoning, not empirical science, to ask questions science can't always answer, though some critics find its abstract speculation unfruitful compared to scientific reality. Its reality lies in its existence as a field of study and its foundational role in shaping how we understand the world, not in providing provable facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+metaphysics+reality
Note --- Physics explores Nature, while Metaphysics (philosophy) explores Human Nature.

In the case of energy, I believe you're reading too much in that physical quantity. . . . .
Note that this isn't a direct criticism on your own metaphysical position. It is just an observation on how careful I think we should be in interpreting physical quantities in a metaphysical way. — boundless

As you say, I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. If this was a Physics forum, that interpretation --- as a non-physical Qualia --- would be inappropriate. However, Please note that I never said or implied that Energy is not a physical Quantity. In philosophy though, we don't measure ideas in terms of numbers, but of meanings. Physically, Energy is measured in units of change : before & after difference*1, not in terms of substance. In philosophy, Causation & Change are measured in terms of information value*2 (meaning), not thermodynamic units.

I'm currently reading a book by Federico Faggin, who is not a philosopher, but a scientist : the inventor of the first practical microprocessor. However, this book, Irreducible, is about a philosophical worldview. Specifically, the nature & role of Consciousness in the real world. In his first two chapters, though, Faggin makes a philosophical distinction between Physical Reality and Quantum Reality. He says, "we experience and know the physical world around us, as well as our inner world, through Qualia." He goes on to divide Consciousness into three categories : perception, emotion, and qualia. He notes that "the third category is thoughts, although most scholars do not regard thoughts as qualia." Then he discusses how the human mind translates private immaterial meanings into public words that other humans can understand. "We are so used to the automatic reification of thoughts into symbols that we have stopped noticing the 'quale' which is the sentient experience of a thought."

Your comment seems to be implying that we should express units of Energy in physical Joules, instead of metaphysical meanings. However, I'm not a physicist, so in my philosophical thesis, I look at Energy from a different perspective*2. I take an abstract concept, which is invisible & immaterial --- known only by its effects on matter --- and represent it in concrete metaphors & analogies. That's the opposite of reification*3. Therefore, I am not denying that Energy has physical effects in the Real world*4. I'm merely noting the metaphysical*5 implications of that causal power in the mental meanings of human conception. On this forum, I do have to be very "careful" when I discuss distinctions between Physics and Meta-Physics. :smile:


*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. Therefore, if you reduce energy to its essence of Information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Reify : to represent something abstract as-if it's concrete.
Note --- In my post I was not reifying an abstraction, but just the opposite. Some people tend to imagine abstract Energy as-if (counterfactual) a material substance : "misplaced concreteness". Instead, I was Idealizing & generalizing the causal forces of the cosmos in terms of philosophical metaphors & analogies.

*4. Yes, energy is real, but it's best understood as a fundamental property of matter and fields, not a physical substance you can hold; it's the capacity to do work, always conserved (never created or destroyed), and manifests as motion (kinetic), stored potential, heat, light, and mass itself, allowing us to see its effects (movement, heat, light) even if energy itself isn't a tangible "thing" like a ball.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+real

*5. Meta-Physics :
Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I wouldn't 'reify' energy as I wouldn't reify any other physical quantities. — boundless

This is a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? Energy is a non-thing concept, it's a knowable-but-not-seeable relationship between things. Energy is unreal & unbound Potential or Probablity that temporarily takes on actual bound forms (matter), causes change of shape or position, and then returns to its unreal immaterial state as latent possibility. Matter dissolves as energy dissipates, but only the Energy is conserved, in its formless form.

Energy is an abstract ethereal concept, which is easier to conceive in the form of material metaphors or physical analogies. For example, Gravity was long imagined as-if a pulling force on an invisible rope, But the falling apple was not attached to a rope. So Newton defined his unseen force in abstract mathematical terms, and Einstein re-imagined it figuratively as curved empty space, even as he redefined it as a geometrical ratio. Can you imagine the number 5 without reifying it as something concrete? :wink:

THE GRAVITY GRID IS IMAGINARY. We reify what we know but can't see.

↪Gnomon
I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains.
Well the way I envision this is that I consider the idea that separation is illusory. In which case there is no requirement for anything to be transmitted. The information is already at its destination. In a sense our whole world, body, brain, mind is an elaborate mechanism preventing us consciously accessing the information that we already know. — Punshhh

According to the Buddha, my Reality is an Illusion based on a misinterpretation. Presumably, the Reductionism of modern Science constructs an illusory, yet practical, model of reality, that allows humans to control Nature for their own ends. Hence, for practical purposes, in the physical world, we don't need to know much about the ghostly metaphysical Ideality that supposedly surrounds us. Knowledge of Metaphysical Truths is only useful for arguing with other philosophers about True Reality. Ideality is how we imagine how the world ought to be.

I'm currently reading Federico Faggin's, Irreducible, which also posits that Mind (Consciousness) per se is the true Reality. He calls that universal Mind : The One*2, which is defined as the Whole of which we human persons are a minuscule particle. It's as-if the metaphorical One is an ocean and I am a sentient molecule of water, ignorant of its own all-encompassing habitat. Or another metaphor is that The Cosmos is like a sentient being, and I am just a single semi-sentient cell in her body.

However, lacking a direct revelation from the Cosmic Consciousness, my local physical & mental reality is all I can know for sure. Which is why I no longer accept the Judeo-Christian-Islam scriptures as evidence of a higher reality : they don't speak directly to me. So I would have to accept their Holy Word on blind faith. The scriptures explain that my own self-conceit is what "prevents" me from conceiving of The Cosmic Self. I can accept The One as an allegory --- God knows or realizes Herself via humans --- but not as an actual loving Being. If I already possess that divine "information", I am not aware of it. :smile:


*1. In Buddhism, the "illusion"isn't that nothing exists, but that our perception of reality is fundamentally distorted by ignorance, leading to suffering (dukkha). Key Buddhist illusions include the belief in a permanent, independent self, clinging to impermanent things as lasting, and seeing the continuous world as static. By understanding these misperceptions through practices like meditation, one can dismantle the ego and realize interconnectedness, achieving liberation from suffering.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buddha+illusion
Note --- I have my little aches & pains, but very little emotional suffering. So, my attempts at meditation didn't provide much Moksha. And I'm too close to The End for the impermanence of life to be scary.

*2. "The One" : refers to physicist and inventor Federico Faggin's theory of consciousness, where "the One" is a universal, holistic quantum field that is the fundamental basis of reality, desiring to know itself through self-reflection, with individual consciousnesses as points of view within this unified field, bridging science and spirituality through concepts like love and unity. Faggin, known for inventing the microprocessor, experienced a profound spiritual awakening that shifted his focus from materialist science to consciousness as the ground of being, exploring how mind and matter interconnect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=faggin+the+one
Note --- Faggin obviously has broad & deep knowledge of Science and Philosophy. But how does he know what the universal quantum field "desires"? Can I choose to accept or to block Mystical Knowing?

The problem with 'energy' is that it is defined in physics as a property of physical objects and physical systems. And while, for instance, in experiments it has been observed that energy is conserved while particles are not. . . . .
In the same way, energy is not a substance that composes matter. — boundless

Yes. Energy is the cause of physical change, while material particles are the things that are in flux. Change >>> Time ; Matter >>> Space. The initial state of the Big Bang theory required two pre-bang things that can't be accounted for : Causal Energy and change-regulating Natural Laws. Both must be pre-existent in order to explain the something-from-nothing event*1 that Cosmologists have calculated by back-tracking current events. So, if Cause & Laws pre-date the space-time bubble we now inhabit, then for all practical purposes, they are eternal. Hence, Energy must be "conserved" because it is essential to the continuing existence of the physical universe.

And yes, Energy is not a physical or material substance, but a quality or property of the world that transforms & sustains the stuff we, and the world, are made of*2. Aristotle knew nothing of modern physics, but he inferred from his observations of Nature (Phusis) that the "stuff" of reality (hylomorph) is a combination of tangible Matter (raw potential : e.g. clay) and knowable Conformation (Platonic Form ; design pattern : sculptural intent). Therefore, Energy is the immaterial power (essence) that causes Matter to take-on different forms.

The physical Universe is known to be temporary, but the metaphysical Cosmos may be eternal*3 (i.e. the source of Cause & Laws that powered and enformed the Big Bang). The OP noted that the philosophy of Noetics postulates that the eternal Cosmos is the "Mind of God". And that the cosmic Mind somehow transmits Ideas (morph ; form) into human Brains (hyle ; matter). I can understand that as a philosophical metaphor, but how could we confirm that spooky notion as a scientific fact? Is Energy a signal from Cosmos to local minds & matter? :wink:



*1. The Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an incredibly hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago, marking the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy, but it doesn't fully explain what caused that initial state or what existed "before". Modern physics suggests "nothing" isn't truly empty; quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum might have seeded the Big Bang, or theories like cosmic inflation describe the rapid growth from a near-nothing state, with ideas like the "Big Bounce" suggesting a previous universe's end catalyzed ours
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing

*2. Substances : primary realities ; qualities, quantities, etc., depend on them for existence.
Matter : The physical stuff, changeable, potential.
Form : The essence, structure, or universal definition that makes something what it is
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+substance

*3. "Space-time bounded by eternity" suggests a concept where the vast, four-dimensional fabric of the universe (space-time) isn't infinite but exists within a greater, timeless reality (eternity) or that all of time and space exist simultaneously as a fixed "block," challenging our perception of linear time, often explored in physics (eternalism) and philosophy to reconcile the universe's existence with timeless concepts of God or ultimate reality, implying our experienced time is just a slice of an ever-present whole.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=space-time+bounded+by+eternity

energy isn't just a 'postulated force' — Wayfarer
When one gets tired, it isn't that one is low on energy, but that one is low on useful energy - the kind that the muscles need. The quality of energy can decay, but never its quantity. — PoeticUniverse

misinterpreted my reference to Energy as a "postulated force"*1, analogous to "spiritual energy"*2. That was not intended as a religious assertion, but simply as a philosophical (metaphysical) concept. Over the years, scientists have postulated the existence of things they couldn't demonstrate. For example Einstein's postulate of curved space sounded silly, but it's now accepted by physicists as a "basis for reasoning"*3. Likewise, some religious believers postulate the existence of ghosts, as a basis for "belief", even though the only evidence may be vague wispy light reflections or spooky sounds.

Energy, even in the form of photons, is invisible & intangible until it is transformed into matter. But it is capable of causing phenomenal changes in the real world. So, what you mean by "quality of energy" may refer to the distinction between "free" (causal) energy and "bound" energy (matter). In my own thesis, Energy is described as a "shape-shifter" : changing form from qualitative Potential to quantitative Actual and back again.

Free Energy (useable, available, potential) is also associated with mental processes*3, such as Inference & FreeWill. Likewise, my notion of Universal Causation (EnFormAction) applies to both physical Energy and metaphysical Inference. So, when your muscles get tired, available physical/material energy (e.g. ATP) has been transformed into motion, and then into waste energy (CO2 & H2O). But the latter are only Potential (metaphysical), not Actual (physical) Energy, until a causal transformation recombines them via form change. :nerd:


*1. Postulate : a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
Planck's Quantum Postulate
Bohr Model Postulates
Conservation of Energy
Schrödinger Equation Postulates
In essence, "energy is postulated" means these core ideas about energy's behavior are fundamental assumptions upon which larger, successful physical theories are built, often confirmed by experiments
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+postulated

*2. "My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts."

*3. The free energy principle is based on the Bayesian idea of the brain as an "inference engine." Under the free energy principle, systems pursue paths of least surprise, or equivalently, minimize the difference between predictions based on their model of the world and their sense and associated perception.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22free+energy%22+faggin

Free Energy
The wind is free, the machine is not.
You ether build, or pay a lot.
If you look, and really see.
Nothing is, truly free.

By Josefh Lloyd Murchison

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon
The comparison to a 'spiritual belief' misses the mark because energy is a strictly defined physical property, not a metaphysical posit. While it isn't a 'tangible substance' like a rock, it is inextricably linked to matter via e=mc2. It has measurable physical effects, including gravity. — Wayfarer

My point was that Energy is logically inferred, not physically observed. I was not implying that it is not a real phenomenon. But over many centuries, various "energies" have been postulated or dismissed as spiritual (metaphysical) forces. Personally, I don't think in terms of spiritual forces*1, or deeper essences, or degrees of reality. However, I do use the term "physical energy" as an instance of a Universal Causal Force*5 in the world : EnFormAction. Which I label as metaphysical*4, because it is inferrable, but not observable. It's intended to be a science-based update to ancient spiritual speculations.

In my reply to I noted : "Scientists & philosophers have for many years attempted to account for the otherwise inexplicable evolutionary emergence of Life (animated matter) and Mind (thinking matter) with a variety of hypothetical postulations : ancient Greek vitalism, Eastern Chi or Prana*2, Bergson's elan vital*3, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, and more recently Whitehead's Process philosophy (evolutionary change over time)". :smile:


*1. Spiritual energy is an invisible life force connecting all living things, known by names like prana, chi, or life force, felt as a subtle vibration influencing physical, mental, and emotional well-being, fostering peace or depletion based on balance. It's seen as a deeper essence of life, linking individuals to the universe and a greater purpose through practices like self-care, compassion, and connecting with nature, art, or community, often managed through energy centers like chakras
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spiritual+energies

*2. In Hinduism, Prana (प्राण) is the Sanskrit word for "life force" or "vital energy," the universal principle that animates all living beings, flowing through the body in channels (nadis) and associated with breath, which is a primary way to absorb and control it. It's considered the subtle energy that fuels our physical, mental, and spiritual existence, categorized into five vital airs (Vayus) like Apana, Samana, Vyana, and Udana, with practices like Pranayama (breath control) used to balance and direct it for health, focus, and spiritual growth.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prana+hinduism

*3. Élan vital (French for "vital impetus" or "vital force") is a philosophical concept by Henri Bergson describing the creative, driving force behind evolution, an inner push that makes life complex and diverse, diverging from simple matter and mechanical processes. It's a dynamic, non-physical energy that propels living organisms to adapt and grow, contrasting with materialistic views and influencing ideas on consciousness, creativity, and the spirit of life itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=elan+vital

*4. Gravity waves, both atmospheric (in fluids like air/water) and spacetime ripples (gravitational waves), are fundamentally physical phenomena, described by physics, but they intersect with metaphysics in deeper questions about the nature of spacetime, quantum gravity, and reality itself, especially when trying to unify relativity and quantum mechanics. While the observation and description are physics, interpreting their ultimate nature (e.g., is spacetime truly a "thing"?) delves into metaphysical realms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gravity+waves+physical+or+metaphysical

*5. Federico Faggin "Vital Force" refers to the theories of physicist and microprocessor inventor Federico Faggin, who posits that consciousness is fundamental to reality, not a byproduct of matter, and is the "vital force" driving the universe, explaining quantum physics and free will. He developed Quantum Information Panpsychism (QIP) suggesting consciousness is a primary quantum phenomenon, with matter as the "ink" it uses to know itself, bridging science and spirituality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=faggin+vital+force

Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. — Gnomon
Nope. Not the point. The profound point is that there are real degrees of reality. — Wayfarer

My comment was a response to your post about philosophical notions on the Reality vs Ideality of Potential vs Actual*1. I was simply referring to a common scientific/philosophical position on a practical distinction between objective observed concrete Knowable Reality and subjective imaginary abstract Hypothetical Concepts .

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. The mundane implication is that Potential is functionally not-yet-real, but I made no assertion about its parallel existence in an immaterial invisible realm of Platonic Forms. Which I don't envision as a higher plane of existence, but merely a concept about a possible unknown source of ideas for the human mind. Perhaps a mythical Cosmic Mind as in Noetics.

But your Point is that reality is a simultaneous multi-level phenomenon??? Is that similar to the belief that there are "degrees" or levels-of-reality*2 that are obvious to our physical & technological senses, and other realms (parallel universes?) that are invisible and occult, except to extra-sensory perception, or through the eyes of Faith? Sadly, I seem to be blind to Hyperreality*3. :wink:


*1. From Wayfarer post above :
"In the... paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses."
Note --- That sounds like an arbitrary assignment to a category, not a verifiable class of "things".

*2. "Degrees of reality" refers to philosophical ideas that existence isn't all-or-nothing, but rather a hierarchy where some things are "more real" than others, often based on independence (like Plato's Forms vs. physical objects) or structure (like Descartes' substances vs. modes). These concepts vary, ranging from objective vs. subjective views (scientific facts vs. beliefs) to layered realities (personal, social, physical) or even spiritual levels (Plotinus's God, intellect, soul, matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

*3. Hyperreality describes a state where simulations and representations become indistinguishable from, or even preferred over, genuine reality, a concept developed by Jean Baudrillard in postmodern culture,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hyperreality

The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). — Gnomon
Could you please explain how and why this is the case? Does it make sense? — Corvus

No. It doesn't make sense to me. That's why I posted the reference to Noetics (study of sentience & intellect) in the OP. I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains. So far, no-one has commented on the Noetic angle, but merely continue the ancient & everlasting Idealism vs Realism arguments that make-up the bulk of diametrically opposed TPF threads. Panpsychism*3 is not exactly the same as Noetics, but quite a few serious secular scientists have publicly stated that they accept it as an axiom for cracking the Hard Problem of Consciousness. My personal Noetic nut-cracker is EnFormAction*4. :smile:


*1. From OP --- Background : I recently finished Dan Brown's new novel, Secret of Secrets, and enjoyed the intellectual thrill ride completely. Spoiler Alert! : If you are not familiar with the book, I'll reveal the "secret" hidden in plain insight : human consciousness, and its alter ego The Mind, is not generated by the brain, but is instead a signal from out there somewhere*2b. If so, what are the special "Noetic faculties" of the human animal*3? Are these spiritual signals the distinguishing factor of homo sapiens?
Note --- The notion of the human brain receiving broadcasts from the universal Mind is merely a fictional device used by Brown to serve as the spooky "secret" in his novel. But Noetics is a real philosophical position postulated by real people. But, as I said in the OP : " I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars."

*2. Noetics and idealism are related philosophical concepts concerning the nature of reality and knowledge, with idealism being a metaphysical stance and noetics a branch of philosophy focused on the mind and intellect. Noetics is often explored within an idealist framework.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+vs+idealism

*3. Scientists and philosophers are increasingly exploring panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, not just complex brains, to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, though it faces challenges like the "combination problem" (how micro-consciousness forms macro-consciousness) and lacks direct experimental proof, with some physicists and neuroscientists supporting it as a valid scientific avenue for integrating mind into matter, while others remain skeptical, calling for concrete physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*4. "Enformaction" isn't a standard English word but appears in philosophical discussions (especially on The Philosophy Forum) to describe the concept of information as potential or the power to change form, linking energy, form, and action in a metaphysical sense, suggesting information is the underlying "structure" or "ideal" behind physical reality. It's used to explore how abstract data (like ideas or memories) can manifest physically (on paper, hard drives) and vice versa, emphasizing that the physical carrier (paper, disk) matters less than the information itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- This is an AI version of my concept of EnFormAction, not in my own words.

Energy is an accounting number, its conservation suggesting some deeper structure. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I suppose it's accounting for physical changes that would otherwise seem like magic. Give it a mundane name, and it sounds more technical, and seems less spooky. In my thesis, I call that "deeper structure" EnFormAction*1. Scientists & philosophers have for many years attempted to account for the otherwise inexplicable evolutionary emergence of Life (animated matter) and Mind (thinking matter) with a variety of hypothetical postulations : ancient Greek vitalism, Eastern Chi or Prana, Bergson's elan vital, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, and more recently Whitehead's Process philosophy (evolutionary change over time).

But all of these motivating & transforming forces seem similar, in causal effect, to the modern notion of physical Energy (power, ability, potential, capability), in various invisible intangible forms : gravity, photons, vacuum energy, virtual particles, etc. So, I lump them all together into the concept of EnFormAction*2. Note the Cosmic Mind interpretation below that may be relevant to the OP. What makes the world go round : energy or conatus? :smile:


*1. The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. EnFormAction :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

# Some people said that energy doesn't exist physically and it is not fundamental, but it is a relationship between other fundamental things.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/484707/does-energy-exist-or-is-it-just-a-relationship-between-other-fundamental-things

↪Paine
↪Gnomon
↪Esse Quam Videri
(I have to briefly sign back in - shhhh - to mention an article I've found interesting, about how Heisenberg re-purposed Aristotle's 'potentia' in respect to quantum physics Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities:

In the... paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. — Wayfarer

Yes. In modern physics, Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. Energy as potential is an Aristotelian "substance" only in the sense of an invisible essence that is capable of transforming into the tangible substance we know as Matter.

Ari's notion of two-phase substance (potential & actual) has always been confusing from a materialist perspective. In my own thesis, I combined potential Energy & Information into the coinage EnFormAction : the power to transform potential Form (design, essence, information) into actual Shapes (structure, matter, hylomorph) and vice versa. Which is what Einstein's equation spells out : (E = MC^2). :smile:


Energy, in the form of Light, is not a local thing, but a dynamic "disturbance" propagating through the universal quantum Field of mathematical points. What we experience locally as Mass (matter) is proportional to the speed of light, which slows-down to form particles of rest-mass-matter. Unfortunately, our matter-based language makes it difficult to express such immaterial (knowable but unsensable) essences & transformations in words. :nerd:

Your depiction of Actual and Potential reverses their roles given in Aristotle's writing:

"But our view explains the facts quite reasonably for the actuality of each thing is naturally inherent in its potentiality, that is in its own proper matter. From all this it is clear that the soul is a kind of actuality or notion of that which has the capacity of having a soul" — Paine

I'll have to admit that Aristotle's definition of a Soul is not clear to me. But it reminds me of similar definitions of Energy as the capacity or ability or potential for work (i.e. material change). In that case, the capacity is not the same as the actuality. It seems more like the potential for actualization, to become realized. So perhaps his Soul is more like our modern notion of Energy : both potential (abstract) and actual (embodied). Embodied Energy is transformed into Matter [E=MC^2, where E is just a number or value, and M is the property (inertia) that makes matter seem actual & real to us]. Anyway, I'm not an Aristotle scholar, so I won't press the issue. :cool:


The statement "soul is a kind of actuality" comes from Aristotle's philosophy, specifically his work On the Soul (De Anima), where he defines the soul as the "first actuality (entelecheia) of a natural body that has life potentially". This means the soul isn't just a potential (what a body could be) but the very realization or form that makes a body actually living, like the knowledge a person has even when sleeping, making it the principle that brings matter into a living organism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=soul+is+a+kind+of+actuality+

what is the relationship between World-at-large & local Brain & personal Mind? — Gnomon

Most of the posts on this thread seem to be various philosophical opinions favoring either traditional Idealism (transcendentalism) or Realism (immanentism). But I just came across a book in my library that offers a scientific version of the Cosmic Mind concept. Music publisher, Howard Bloom's 2000 book, Global Brain, presents his postulation of "collective information processing"*1*2*3 on a universal scale. Which is relevant to my own amateur philosophical thesis of Enformationism. Bloom is also the author of The God Problem : How a Godless Cosmos Creates.

Obviously, Global Brain is a speculative hypothesis, and there is no more empirical evidence for a GB than for a Transcendent Deity. In the Prologue, Bloom says, "we living beings have been modules of something current evolutionary theory fails to see". He goes on to postulate that "we are parts of a greater mind constantly testing fresh hypotheses". Do these statements sound more like religion than science? Note --- the use of "brain" instead of "mind" may be an attempt to avoid spiritual connotations.

Has anyone else read the book? How do you think it relates to the theme of this thread? Is there a Cosmic Mind, and are human minds the offspring of that mysterious progenitor? Is human culture on Earth just one element of a top-down Universal Intelligence? Or are human agents, inadvertently and unwittingly, in the process of creating a Cosmic Mind --- or a Singularity --- from the ground-up, so to speak? :smile:


*1. The concept of a "global brain" relates to the theory that humanity, together with its technological agents and communication networks like the Internet, is evolving into a single, interconnected, information-processing system, which functions as the nervous system for a social superorganism
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=global+brain+study+group+superorganismic+intelligence

*2. Global Brain : The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century by Howard Bloom argues that life on Earth is a single, evolving "global brain," a complex adaptive system where individuals are part of a larger social learning machine, from bacteria to humans. The book traces this evolution from the Big Bang, showing how groups (like bacterial colonies, insect swarms, and human societies) have always functioned as collective intelligences, using mechanisms like conformity and diversity to test ideas and adapt, with the internet being the latest phase of this process.
Group Selection :
Bloom posits that evolution isn't just about individual genes, but about groups competing and learning from each other, with successful group traits being passed on.
Social Learning Machine :
He proposes that all life forms, from microbes to humans, are part of a massive, interconnected system for processing information and learning.
Mechanisms of the Global Brain :
The system relies on elements like "conformity enforcers" (to maintain stability) and "diversity generators" (to innovate), which are seen in everything from bacterial colonies to human cultures.
Historical Examples :
The book uses examples like marching lobsters, bee colonies, and ancient Sparta to illustrate how different species have engaged in collective problem-solving and social learning.
The Internet as a New Phase :
The World Wide Web is presented as the most recent and powerful stage in the evolution of this global brain.
Key Takeaway
The book challenges traditional Darwinian views by suggesting that the purpose of life is not just individual reproduction, but the exploration and survival of the "mass mind" through group-level experimentation and competition.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=howard+bloom+global+brain

*3. A global brain emergent structure is the concept that the interconnected internet, social media, and AI form a planetary-scale, self-organizing information system, analogous to a biological brain, where collective human and machine intelligence arises from countless interactions, creating higher-level cognition for problem-solving, though decentralized and without a single controller, much like neurons forming a brain. This emergent intelligence processes information globally, similar to how neural networks function, allowing for complex, large-scale tasks beyond individual capacity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=global+brain+emergent+structure

The passage is no starting point for the distinction between immanence and transcendence in the theological sense because nothing is possible if it is not "natural." Aristotle questions the freedom of the "Craftsman" in the Timaeus. A topic that leads to the third paragraph:

412a16. Since it is indeed a body of such a kind (for it is one having life), the soul will not be body; for the body is not something predicated of a subject, but exists rather as subject and matter. The soul must then, be substance qua form of a natural body which has life potentially. Substance is actuality. The soul, therefore, will be the actuality of a body of this kind. — ibid. 412a16 — Paine

Aristotle distinguished between Soul & Body, just as he made a distinction between abstract Form & concrete Matter. The quote doesn't say this specifically, but I interpret the Soul (ousia, essence, form -- subject?, person?) as Transcendent & Potential, and Body (matter, flesh, substance) as Immanent & Actual.

So when Potential is Actualized --- e.g. sperm & egg quicken to become one person --- Soul & Body are united into a living-thinking Hylomorph. Theologians later interpreted the Soul as existing eternally and supernaturally, so at death the Soul separates from the natural concrete material body, and returns to its supernatural abstract potential form. Hence, the imaginative notion of a disembodied ghost lurking in some intermediate realm between Nature and Super-nature.

But, going back to the OP, where does the human Mind & Person come into play? Does the transcendent Soul think like a mind? If so, what does it think about? What is it like to be a disembodied Mind? Does the non-personal Cosmic Potential (Nature) somehow create the actual embodied Mind by joining Form & Flesh (abstract essence & concrete substance) into a natural person? :chin:

I just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

Perhaps Hume somehow anticipated the discovery of Quantum Causation*1, which is statistical & uncertain & non-local instead of actual & deterministic & particular. From a local close-up position, we see only single pairs of cause & effect elements. Yet, from a few causal experiences, we can generalize and infer that this current causal event is an effect of a prior cause, and an unbroken chain of causes extending back into infinity. For example, scientists concluded from snapshots of the current expanding astronomical state, we can trace cause & effect back 14 billion Earth-years to a hypothetical physical First Cause : the Big Bang.

Therefore, from a cosmic perspective (imaginary of course) we can "see" long chains of cause & effect, or possible teleological trends in transformation. So, by combining a few direct observations with creative conceptualization, we derive the common and scientific notion of energetic-transfer causation.

Hume's skeptical & reductionist & purposeless view disallows optimistic & holistic interpretations of world processes*2. But from a more open-minded perspective*3, the Cosmos seems to show signs of Progression & Teleology*4. :nerd:


*1. Quantum Causality : Bell's Theorem shows that conditions of "local causality" in experiments involving quantum entanglement result in non-classical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+causality

*2. David Hume's view on causality argues that we don't perceive a necessary connection between cause and effect, only a "constant conjunction" of events (Event A always followed by Event B). This repeated experience creates a mental habit or expectation, leading us to believe in a necessary power or link, but this isn't a logically certain or empirically observable feature of the world; it's a psychological projection, making causality a matter of custom, not reason or direct perception, a core tenet of his empiricism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hume+causality

*3. Kant agrees with Hume that neither the relation of cause and effect nor the idea of necessary connection is given in our sensory perceptions; both, in an important sense, are contributed by our mind. For Kant, however, the concepts of both causality and necessity arise from precisely the operations of our understanding—and, indeed, they arise entirely a priori as pure concepts or categories of the understanding.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Note --- Correlation does not prove Causation. But it does seem "necessary" to our normal "operations of understanding". An event that does not seem necessary feels like magic.

*4. Whitehead's process teleology : posits that the universe isn't moving toward a fixed goal but is inherently driven towards the production and intensification of beauty, understood as the harmonious contrast of diverse experiences, lured by a divine "primordial nature" that presents possibilities for richer, more complex unifications. This teleology is open and creative, meaning purpose emerges from each moment (actual occasion) making decisions about possibilities (eternal objects) to form new experiences, leading to an evolving, never-finished cosmos where beauty, novelty, and value are intrinsic aims, not just human constructs
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+teleology

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF APPARENT COSMIC EXPANSION?

How else do we know "what is true"? — Gnomon
Notice that in the context of science, this is usually limited to a specific question or subject matter, but can also then be expanded to include general theories and hypotheses. Philosophical questions are much more open-ended and often not nearly so specific. That is the subject of another thread, The Predicament of Modernity. — Wayfarer

Apparently, disagrees with your definition of Philosophical questioning. He seems to picture himself as a Socratic gadfly, arguing against the Sophists, whose fallacious logic and situational rhetoric was goal-oriented instead of truth-seeking. In my early reading about Philosophy, Socrates was portrayed (by Catholic theologians?) as the good-guy, separating True from False, and the Sophists*1 were bad-guys, preaching relativity & subjectivity. Yet, unlike 180's sneering & disparaging & humiliating trolling-technique, Socrates' philosophical method*3 was dialectical & didactic & persuasive.

Now, I'm beginning to see that the Sophists' "practical wisdom" may have been anticipating the subjective relativity*2 of Einstein. Today, the notion of absolute Truth is relegated to revealed religions, while pragmatic Science makes-do with Bayesian truths. My own "open-ended" BothAnd philosophy is holistic & complementary & inclusive, instead of a dogmatic Either/Or belief system, which is reductive, binary, & exclusive.

I guess the Predicament of Modernity is highlighted by the Classical (deterministic) vs Quantum (probabilistic) revolution in worldviews. Transcendent truths are inherently subjective conjectures, not objective observations. So, how does 180 know what is objective capital-T-truth*4, while I have to get by with my little subjective perspective? :cool:


*1. The Sophists were ancient Greek thinkers who emphasized relativism, believing truth, knowledge, and morality are subjective and depend on human perspective, famously stated by Protagoras' maxim, "Man is the measure of all things". They taught rhetoric as a vital skill for success in politics, focusing on practical wisdom and the power of persuasive speech (logos) to shape reality, often contrasting with Socrates' search for universal, objective truths. Key beliefs included skepticism, conventionalism (laws are human-made), and humanism, seeing humans and their needs at the center of philosophy, not divine mandates.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sophists

*2. Einstein's Relativity fundamentally changed philosophy by showing space and time aren't absolute but relative to an observer (Special Relativity) and that gravity is the curvature of spacetime (General Relativity), challenging concepts of universal "now" and introducing a geometric view of the cosmos, influencing epistemology, metaphysics (reality of space/time), and even religion through his idea of a "cosmic religion" based on nature's order.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+relativity+philosophy

*3. The Socratic Method is a teaching and discussion technique named after Socrates, using persistent, probing questions to guide individuals toward deeper understanding, uncovering assumptions, identifying contradictions, and fostering critical thinking rather than simply giving answers. It's a dialectical process of dialogue, discovery, and self-examination, moving from what a person knows to complex truths by systematically challenging ideas through carefully planned questions, aiming for clearer, more consistent thought
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=socratic+method

*4. "Capital T Truth" (or Big T Truth) refers to universal, absolute, objective reality or fundamental principles beyond personal belief, contrasting with "little t truths," which are subjective, contextual, or individual perspectives/facts (e.g., "my truth"). Think of it as the ultimate, overarching reality versus specific, smaller truths or experiences, often used in philosophy and religion to discuss transcendent concepts like Beauty, Good, or Truth itself, as opposed to mere factual statements
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=capital+t+truth

You're presuming that "real world" human reasoning is somehow beyond duplicating. I don't see any problems at all, because any specific issue you might bring up could be dealt in the design- either in software or hardware. — Relativist

Ha! I don't do a lot of "presuming" about such technical questions, because that is peripheral to my amateur philosophy hobby. But I'm currently reading a book by Federico Faggin*1, who is a credentialed expert in computer-related technology. And he details a variety of "problems" and "specific issues" that could limit software & hardware design from reaching the goal of duplicating human reasoning.

Faggin seems to be an Idealist, who believes that Consciousness is fundamental, and the human Mind is irreducible to physical processes. Personally, I have a slightly different view of the foundations of human thought. But hey! What do I know? I'm just an untrained amateur philosopher, and he is an experienced computer guru. :smile:


*1. Irreducible : Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature is a 2024 book by Federico Faggin, the inventor of the microprocessor, that argues consciousness is a fundamental quantum phenomenon, not an emergent property of complex computation, challenging the idea that humans are just biological machines.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=irreducible+book

Fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic ARE algorithmic- it's feasible to program these. The programmming could keep it predictable (a given input will necessarily produce the same output), or randomness could be introduced. — Relativist

Of course fuzzy logic is algorithmic to some degree or it wouldn't be programmable for digital computers. But it's much more flexible & adaptable to the non-algorithmic real world than sharp line-item programming. Perhaps it was attempt to simulate human-style Bayesian logic*1 (degrees of truth) by introducing uncertainty & probability into an otherwise deterministic & predictable program.

Footnote*2 indicates that just fuzzing the algorithms was not enough to make computers think like humans. AI and ChatBots are getting closer to that dumbing-down goal by introducing human-like if-then rules. But self-awareness seems to require something a bit beyond just fuzzing the focus : a generalized contextual worldview and an embodied subject. :smile:

*1. "Non-algorithmic fuzzy logic"generally refers to the conceptual foundation of fuzzy logic (dealing with degrees of truth and human-like reasoning), distinct from the specific algorithms or hardware implementations that make it work in computer systems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=non-algorithmic+fuzzy+logic

*2. Fuzzy logic was an overhyped 90s phenomenon that was largely based on the belief that one could design a control system without an understanding of control theory and somehow it would magically turn out better. That reality never materialized. . . . .
fuzzy logic is itself a mathematical concept born out of fuzzy sets and probability. It's basically just a tool to describe imprecise or incomplete information when working in a discrete system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/pwht4f/whatever_happened_to_fuzzy_logic/

Now I hold that plants are conscious, just not like us. But they are alive and present and conscious in a more meditative state than us, because they don’t have a brain. . . . .
Describing and recording data about something and transferring that data to us. But just in a different way, a way that includes conscious behaviour, but which the tree is entirely unconscious of, rather like the way the AI is entirely unconscious of what it is doing. — Punshhh

That's an interesting way to look at the consciousness conundrum. Living organic plants could not survive if they didn't sense their environment, and interact with it in a manner controlled by self-interest. The Consciousness definition below includes a social factor (with) that might help to distinguish human-style awareness from plant & amoeba sensitivity to internal needs and external goods. As social beings, we need to be aware of what our fellows are aware of. :smile:


*1. The word consciousness comes from Latin conscientia, meaning "shared knowledge," combining con- (with) and scire (to know), initially implying joint awareness or a shared secret. It evolved in English in the 17th century, first meaning "internal knowledge," then expanding to "awareness of one's own mind" (1670s) and later "awareness of anything" (1740s). The term has roots in the Latin conscius (knowing with) and its Greek predecessor syneidesis, highlighting a core idea of knowing alongside or within oneself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+etymology

There's also the matter of temperament. Some are temperamentally drawn to religious ideas, others are temperamentally averse to them. — Wayfarer

Yes. As an anti-social introvert, I am not temperamentally attracted to emotional social religions. I suppose dull rational internet philosophy is my religion substitute. :nerd:

can True/False computers replace Maybe/Maybe-Not human philosophers?* — Gnomon
Fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic address this, at least to a degree. — Relativist

Yes. Non-algorithmic Fuzzy Logic*1 is an attempt to make digital computers think more like humans. And it may be necessary for Chat Bots to deal with imprecise human dialog. Yet it reduces the primary advantage of computers : precision & predictability.

Microprocessor inventor, Federico Faggin says : "There is an unbridgeable gap between artificial and human intelligence, which is characterized by comprehension : a non-algorithmic property of consciousness that is often underestimated and inaccessible to computers"

I suspect that, if developers want to create a more realistic humanoid companion robot, they will have make them out of non-algorithmic flesh & blood instead of silicon semiconductors. But we may then have to deal with loveable ditzy dames, instead of stolid Mr. Spock robots.. :wink:


*1. Fuzzy logic's main advantages include its ability to handle imprecise, vague, or uncertain information (like human language), mimicking human reasoning for more natural decisions, and its robust, cost-effective nature, allowing simple sensors and easy performance tuning for complex control systems in areas like appliances, automotive, and AI. It provides smooth, gradual control and can model complex, non-linear systems without needing exact mathematical models
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fuzzy+logic+advantages

I'm not interested in being drawn into comments about debates with 180proof. From time to time I may respond to his comments directed at me. — Wayfarer

Me too. Apparently, because my BothAnd philosophy is so offensive to his Either/Or worldview, he seldom engages me in philosophical dialog. So normally, I ignore his trolling taunts & gibes, unless he happens to raise a question pertinent to the current topic.

In this thread, I think his two-value logic is not appropriate. So, I tried to explain to myself why philosophy does not deal in yes-no questions. I only include his reply-name because, in years past, he objected to my talking behind his back, without naming him. I don't know why he wastes time actually reading my posts on topics that seem to viscerally upset him. :smile:

Meaning requires a Me. A digital computer has no self-concept to serve as the Subject to interpret incoming data relative to Self-interest. Does AI know itself? — Gnomon
I tossed this to Claude. Read on if you wish. — Wayfarer

I have no experience with AI, other than Google Search. But I suspect that the human programmers of Chat-Bots necessarily include a self-reference algorithm in the basic code. But whether that kind of reflection constitutes self-awareness, I have to agree with Claude : "I'm genuinely uncertain whether I have experiences with the qualitative character that humans do, or whether there's "something it's like" to be me processing these words". :smile:


A self-referential algorithm is a computational process that can inspect, modify, or interact with its own structure, data, or operation, often creating a feedback loop where the algorithm's behavior influences its future state or even its own code.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=self+referential+algorithm

Another difficult subject. Suffice to say, I think it's the understanding, taken as obvious by a lot of our contemporaries, that science is the arbiter of what is truly the case. But scientific method embodies certain characteristic attitudes and procedures which are problematic in a philosophical context. — Wayfarer

How else do we know "what is true"? asserts that Formal or Mathematical Logic is the arbiter of true/false questions. And algorithmic computers are known as the masters of math. But philosophy is supposed to be a search for Wisdom, while religion is presumed to provide absolute divinely-revealed Truth. Some disparagingly call philosophy "the study of questions without answers". Yet ancient Philosophy has spawned empirical Science as a tool to provide pertinent facts (not truths) to guide us in our exploration of a puzzling world.

A Scientific American Nov25 article is entitled "Can AI outdo mathematicians?" The article author, professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins, warned : " Although so-called reasoning models are prompted to break problems down into pieces [analysis] and explain their 'thinking' step-by-step [logic], the output is as likely to produce an argument that sounds logical but isn't as to constitute a genuine proof". She concludes by noting : "in life, there is a lot of uncertainty".

A related question may be : can True/False computers replace Maybe/Maybe-Not human philosophers?*1 In a formal (ideal) world, digital and large-language computers may outperform human reasoning. But that's precisely because the machines omit & avoid the complexities & contradictions ("shades of color" & nuances of meaning) characteristic of informal human thinking about real world inter-subjective situations. 1/0 and true/false deliberately "exclude the middle" of uncertainties & infinities that plague imperfect analog humans.

As Wayfarer repeatedly notes : Logical Math, Reductive Science, and Digital Computers have no self-perspective to put the world into a meaningful dynamic context relative to personal questioners. Hence, their absolute either-or, black-vs-white, ideal-world outputs cannot account for real-world problems & questions of fallible-but-goal-oriented humans. Computers supply yes/no answers, but they don't ask philosophical questions*2. Socrates asked a lot of questions, and aspired to ideal Truth, but admitted in intellectual humility that he knew nothing for certain.

Consequently, in my humble opinion, bivalent (two-value) reasoning has no place on an informal forum like this, where we ask not-what-is-true-or-false, but what-is-meaningful in a specific situation. Is this a Science & Technology Forum or a Philosophy forum? :nerd:



*1. What is the difference between mathematical reasoning and philosophical reasoning?
I think the big difference between mathematics and philosophy is that mathematics tends to start from something like a formal system, and see how much can be proven within it. Philosophy approaches the question of "what formal systems are right?" If a formal system proves something non-intuitive, Philosophers will immediately start studying the axioms of the formal system to see if they may be missing something. Philosophers admit more shades of "color" into their arguments than mathematicians can.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21304/what-is-the-difference-between-mathematical-reasoning-and-philosophical-reasoning

*2. Computers can simulate asking and answering philosophical questions by processing vast amounts of text and mimicking philosophical discourse, but whether they can truly ask original, conscious philosophical questions is a major debate, largely hinging on consciousness, understanding (semantics vs. syntax), and the nature of ideas, with most experts currently saying no, as current AI manipulates symbols without genuine comprehension or subjective experience (qualia).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=can+computers+ask+philosophical+questions

The "logical fallacy" of a two-value (right/wrong) posturing is ... — Gnomon
False. Bivalence, or law of the excluded middle, is an axiom of classical logic (indispensable for determining many formal and informal fallacies) as well as Boolean logic (the basis of computational and information sciences). — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof
It's one of those ideas that kind of straddles philosophy and science, that we can say.
Depending on how you look at it :rofl: — Wayfarer

In Faggin's chapter on The Nature of Machines, he makes a distinction between deterministic (true/false) digital computers, and freewill analog (maybe/probability) meat brains*1. Apparently, 180 prefers cold, hard binary (true/false) computing to warm-blooded holistic human thinking*2.

Ironically, Binary Logic is Idealistic, in the sense of presuming mechanical perfection*3*4. But human Logic is Realistic, in the sense that living organisms are imperfect, yet adaptable to contingencies in the evolving real world. Binary computers are bound by their programming, and require "interrupts" to call for human help when the program encounters unexpected obstacles.

As you noted, human nature seems to straddle both sides of the imaginary True/False, Either/Or omniscience of the gods & robots, and the realistic Maybe/Truish, Both/And knowing of human animals. 180's god-like view is absolute & indisputable, but Wayfarer's mundane view depends on your personal perspective and is philosophically moot. :cool:


*1. Federico Faggin : "Note that the only recognition required of the hardware is to reliably distinguish the state "0" from the state "1". This recognition does not produce any meaning."
"The operation of the computer, however, is extremely fragile, because it would take just one wrong bit to turn a machine that seems intelligent and deliberate into a completely useless box of metal, plastic, and silicon."
"Within a deterministic machine there is no free will"
Note --- Meaning requires a Me. A digital computer has no self-concept to serve as the Subject to interpret incoming data relative to Self-interest. Does AI know itself?

*2. Boolean Logic versus Human Reasoning :
The opposite of binary thinking (black-and-white, either/or) involves embracing complexity through Spectrum Thinking, Non-Binary Thinking, or Grey Thinking, focusing on nuances, gradations, and multiple possibilities rather than rigid categories like good/bad or right/wrong. It's about recognizing the "both/and," finding common ground, exploring the space between extremes, and seeing the interconnectedness of ideas, allowing for more flexible, nuanced solutions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=binary+antonym

*3. "Mechanical perfection" refers to the ideal, flawless operation of a machine, free from errors, wear, or friction, though it's often a theoretical concept;
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mechanical+perfection

*4. Superiority Complex : A person who thinks they're perfect might be called a perfectionist, an elitist, or a narcissist, often displaying traits like setting unrealistic standards, being hypercritical, demanding flawlessness, and struggling with criticism, sometimes masking deep-seated insecurity or a superiority complex where they feel inherently better than others.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=person+who+thinks+he%27s+perfect

Except that a lucky guess modeled the quantum fields as harmonic oscillators by performing a Fourier transform on all sorts of waves to be as sinusoidal, and, lo, the quantum model of rungs of quanta falling out matched the reality of experiments and made for quantum field theory to be the most successful in the history of science. — PoeticUniverse

The material & practical success of quantum science is undeniable : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. But what about the immaterial theoretical foundation of that pragmatic progress? Is quantum theory & philosophy compatible with your own worldview?*1

Faggin interprets quantum indeterminism in terms of philosophical Idealism. And he dismisses deterministic Realism as an illusion. He makes a rational reasonable case for his All One philosophy, but for me it still requires a heaping helping of emotional Faith to accept, as a metaphysical Fact, that The One uses the physical world as a way to "know itself and self-actualize". That sounds like an old theological rationalization for why omnipotent/omniscient/eternal/infinite Jehovah created a space-time world and populated it with imperfect & temporary worshipful beings*2. :smile:


*1. I guess it comes down to what are you going to believe, your own senses, or the mystical myths of science-priests? Who do you trust, your own eyes, or the tea-leaf readings of atom-smashing scientists? When I see the world with my built-in ocular instruments, I see a continuous reality, not a discrete digital quantum ideality. So, is quantum science, and it's implicit transcendent belief system, a perversion of the world as it really is? ___Gnomon post above

*2. The idea that "God knows self by means of humans" is a philosophical or theological concept not directly stated in mainstream religious texts but explored in various interpretations of divine self-knowledge and human purpose.
Mainstream Christian theology generally holds that God is a self-existent, omniscient being who understands Himself through Himself, independent of His creation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=god+knows+self+by+means+of+humans

*3. Rhetorical Question :How are invisible "harmonic oscillators" different from a heavenly choir of angels continually singing praises to God? The quantum vibrations (on-off, +/-) somehow manifest as a tangible physical world, and the celestial vibrating voices support the ego of God, who in turn continually creates a reality for humans down below.

An Essay on Man
" by Alexander Pope
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man."

"You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is Ātman." ___Upanishad — Wayfarer

The title of this thread was intentionally chosen to evoke some relationship between the Universe, as a whole system, and human consciousness as a part (and maybe participant) in that system. In Federico Faggin's book Irreducible, he tends to use Plotinus' notion of The One (ultimate source of reality) instead of the Platonic notion of Cosmos (the universe conceived as a beautiful, harmonious, and well-ordered system). But some people prefer the religious term “God” in their discussions of Ontology (what we can know about our existence). The question here is about the ultimate source of human Being, and specifically the self-conscious Mind that is supposed to be our primary distinction from biological plants & sentient animals. Faggin defines The One as “the totality of what exists”, and makes the questionable assertion that “One wants to know Itself and self-actualize”.

Ancient people didn't understand some frightening features of Nature : how can it be blue sky one day and dark & stormy the next? Thunderstorms, volcanoes, and earthquakes are just a few of the scary deviations from the warm & cozy character of Mother Nature (Cosmos personified). So, they must have imagined that there is some invisible deeper or higher level of SuperNature, which some pictured as humanoid gods above the clouds. Faggin is a modern scientist though, with a much more detailed understanding of how Nature works, including the invisible realm of Quantum physics.

Now even a sober secular scientist has come to believe in unseen aspects of the world, that our physical senses are not innately tuned to detect. Yet, he knows about the hidden Quantum dimension of total Reality only by mathematical reasoning, supported by mystifying experiments. Instead of postulating anthro-morphic gods though, he uses more abstract, operational, and relational terminology. He also refers to our commonsense knowledge of the world as “the illusory model of reality created by our senses”*1. Quantum scientists now describe the mysteries of the unseen reality by less anthro-morphic, but oddly weird language. Instead of super-human gods, he refers to the Ideality behind Reality as “Fields”. But it's still spooky, and probably offensive to philosophical Realists.

Like Einstein, is a Realist, and seems to be spooked by any idealistic reference to super-nature or deeper-reality or transcendent realms or quantum infinity, that are insensible to our physical senses. So, he lashes-out at those infidels, who dare to speak of a non-classical model of reality. Isaac Newton was realistic, except for his assumption of a personal God in his eternal immeasurable heaven, somewhere above our 3-dimensional physical world. Einstein's secular notion of God was more like an impersonal Cosmos, as described by Spinoza in 1677. And in 1935, Einstein published a paper (EPR paradox) arguing that quantum physics was “incomplete” because it violated the “locality principle”, implying that our finite reality was actually infinite. Despite Einstein's skepticism, Faggin reports that the Bell “experiment and all subsequent ones have shown that quantum physics is correct and that Einstein's objections were not valid".

Nevertheless, I have to take Faggin's interpretations as hearsay, because I have no personal experience of such immaterial non-things as mathematical Fields, and Holistic entanglement of statistical particles. So, I can understand why 180proof would be freaked-out by such ghostly non-sense. I guess it comes down to what are you going to believe, your own senses, or the mystical myths of science-priests? Who do you trust, your own eyes, or the tea-leaf readings of atom-smashing scientists? When I see the world with my built-in ocular instruments, I see a continuous reality, not a discrete quantum ideality. So, is quantum science, and it's implicit transcendent belief system, a perversion of the world as it really is?

180's Either/Or worldview, like Spinoza's 17th century unified monistic system, and like Newton's 17th century mechanical deterministic divine system, is pure & perfect. So 21st century scientists and metaphysicians, like you and me, seem to be shitting on his pristine porcelain. For years, I thought he was just a disgruntled troll. But now I see that there is a logical philosophical viewpoint underlying his Good versus Evil worldview, unsullied by the uncertainties, indeterminism, unpredictability and general fuzziness of Quantum philosophy. By contrast, my world seems to be imperfect, incomplete, and still evolving toward some unknowable future state, that may or may not include flawed flesh & blood humans like me. If we can't believe our personal concrete senses, can we rely on abstract reasoning to reveal the true nature of the world around us? :chin:


*1. Late Lament
song by Moody Blues
. . . . . . .
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

He regarded the 'complementarity principle' as the most important philosophical discovery of his life. — Wayfarer

Ironically, would troll Neils Bohr as a wishy-washy woo-purveyor, if he had the audacity to post his on this forum. I just realized the significance of the alcohol-purity screenname : A> it may symbolize the ideal of a trump-like "perfect" worldview : Black vs White & True vs False & Immanent vs Transcendent*1 with no watered-down adulterants. Or B> it dumbs-down philosophical complexities to Either/Or dualities that a simple mind can handle.

The "logical fallacy" of a two-value (right/wrong) posturing is the arrogant presumption of absolute knowledge. Which often causes imbalance & disharmony among imperfect humans. I suppose 180's "ideal" of perfect omniscience is admirable in a way, but it's not Plato's way.

For the rest of the story : Rutherford-Bohr's original classical planetary model of an atom was later invalidated by Heisenberg's statistical Uncertainty Principle. But, as you noted, Bohr --- with intellectual modesty --- later came to accept the Yin-and-Yang Complementary Principle illustrated in the Taoism symbol. Note, I also use that Holistic image as a bullet in my blog posts.

For most philosophers and scientists, the search-for-truth is motivated by the lack of omniscience. But 180, on his pure-white perch above us mortals, can despise any signs of ignorance and intellectual modesty. :joke:




*1. "Either/or black vs white" refers to the logical fallacy of a false dilemma (or false dichotomy), where only two extreme options (black or white, good or bad, for or against) are presented, ignoring the vast spectrum of possibilities, nuances, and "shades of gray" that actually exist, often used to oversimplify complex issues or force a choice. It's a way of thinking that reduces complex realities to simple, opposing choices, hindering deeper understanding and compromise.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=either+or+black+vs+white&zx=1765662725371&no_sw_cr=1

*2. In philosophy, the search for truth is the fundamental, ongoing quest to understand reality, knowledge, and existence, using reason, logic, and critical inquiry to answer big questions, even without definitive answers, with various methods like correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism offering different paths to what is real or useful. It's seen as a core activity, even if philosophers often debate what truth is, with some defining it as what works (Pragmatism), what matches reality (Correspondence), or a coherent system of ideas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+search+for+truth

*3. The Yin Yang principle is a foundational concept in Chinese philosophy describing the belief that opposing forces are interconnected, complementary, and interdependent. Represented by the Taijitu symbol, yin (the dark, passive, feminine force) and yang (the light, active, masculine force) are not static but are in a dynamic, ever-changing balance, where each contains a seed of the other. The principle emphasizes that harmony is achieved through the balance of these two forces, not through extremes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=yin+yang+principle


COMPLEMENTARY YIN-YANG PRINCIPLE OF HOLISM

As regards Faggin - I sense that the One resonates with the One of Plotinus' philosophy. He has taken ideas from a variety of sources, and also developed his own using metaphors from quantum physics and computing. But still see him as rather idiosyncratic. He's not going to get noticed much in the 'consciousness studies' ecosystem for that reason. — Wayfarer

Faggin is indeed idiosyncratic compared to eclectic New-Age-type religious philosophy. But his empirical & rational approach may be acceptable to some strands of Consciousness Studies*1. So far, his book is mostly about a scientific worldview, not a religious belief system. The word "god" does not appear in his glossary, but the term "panpsychism" does. Consequently, I get the impression that his worldview is Philosophical & Scientific, not Religious ; intellectual & practical, not emotional.

His chapter 2 is about The Nature of Quantum Reality, and his "creator" is abstract & impersonal. Speaking of universal quantum fields, he says : "These fields have space & time in common and are the fundamental entities that, interacting with each other, create everything that exists physically". The fields themselves may be construed as Metaphysical, but it remains to be seen if Faggin views them as created by some higher power, or are self-existent : i.e. god-like.

In discussing quantum particles, he describes them, not as Lucretius' tiny hard balls of stuff, but as foggy "clouds" of mathematical probability. To me, that sounds more like Platonic Ideality (shadows in the cave) than Aristotle's Physics. Personally, for all pragmatic purposes, I act as-if my world-model is Aristotelian (practical) Reality, but for theoretical exploration I can also imagine a Platonic metaphysical Ideality. Not Either/Or, but BothAnd.

As I read chapter 2, a thought occurred to me : Classical Newtonian physics was compatible with the Bible God, who creates a world, like a wind-up toy, and sets it on a straight & narrow path in a specific direction. But non-linear & probabilistic Quantum physics is more like the erratic & random ancient religions based on natural cycles. Their polytheistic gods (e.g. Olympian) were not all-powerful, and argued amongst themselves. Which left their worshipers grappling with mysteries beyond comprehension, wandering guided only by faith. On the other hand, non-religious Philosophy can deal with Quantum Mysticism, not by Faith, but by Reason. :nerd:

*1. Consciousness Studies is an interdisciplinary field exploring the nature of subjective experience, blending neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, physics, and more, to understand how the brain creates self-awareness and reality, focusing on identifying neural correlates, developing theories like Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory, and investigating altered states like meditation, aiming to bridge the gap between physical brain processes and phenomenal experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+studies