-
A first cause is logically necessary
Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:↪180 Proof
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr
Metaphysical necessity :
In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity, is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity -
A first cause is logically necessary
Pardon me for my audacious assumption. For clarity, I replaced your second "only" with "logical". Although the assertion would work as written, with "only-only" as an emphatic way of saying "no alternatives".. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim
I doubt that can refute your reasoning, so he merely denies your conclusion. First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. As a hypothetical worldview, Einstein's Block Time Eternalism is static & acausal, and bears little resemblance to our incrementally-evolving ever-changing space-time reality, with something new every day. In which case our common sense notion of Time is a "persistent" illusion.
But if our increment of eternity is causal & sequential, 180's non-starter world must then be acausal & discontinuous. If so, his logic is circular, while yours is linear & reasonable : it begins with an either/or premise, and reaches an irrefutable logical conclusion. Unless, of course our world is a Block-time Universe, or one big random series of accidents : no logic, no reason, no direction, just "it is what it is". Atheistic scientists & philosophers are not embarrassed to fill the Causal Gap before the Big Bang with a tower of turtles Multiverse : causes stacked on top of each other, rather than sequential. :smile:
PS___"First Cause" arguments are literally & deliberately agnostic about the gap-filler.
A Causal Theory of Knowing :
A causal chain is described as a sequence of events for which one event in a chain causes the next. According to Goldman, these chains can only exist with the presence of an accepted fact, a belief in the fact, and a cause for the subject to believe the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Causal_Theory_of_Knowing
Note --- Since Plato, the First Cause argument has been an accepted premise for reasoning about causation. Of course, like a pool-shooter, the initial impetus (causal power) may not itself be a link in the space-time chain of bouncing balls.
IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE ETERNAL TURTLE
WHERE'S THE FIRST CAUSE?
-
Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
Maybe we can get closer to plausible answers to such enigmas. Folk wisdom has equated Mind with Energy for centuries, and that notion is often the basis of Magical thinking. However, there is now some scientific evidence to suggest that Consciousness is not a material substance, but an energetic process*1. Yet Energy itself is not made of Matter, but is a primordial-essential-causal form of existence that can transform into Matter (E=MC^2), and Mind. So, the Hard Problem of Consciousness may be related to the equally mysterious nature of Energy itself*1b.Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle
In any knowledge that we create, we can always generate new "why" questions that we aren't able to answer, this isn't specific to consciousness. — Skalidris
In my Enformationism thesis, I equate both Energy & Mind with an even more general & fundamental process in the world : EnFormAction, which is merely a novel spelling of "Information"*2. We typically associate information (power to enform) with Knowledge, or computer Data, but it's also the causal agent of human culture that can put a man on the moon --- not by magic, but by collective communal Intention (mind power to imagine and to execute a plan of action). Unfortunately, the procedural steps by which Information produces Energy, which produces Consciousness, remains a "how" question for Science, and a "why" question for Philosophy. :nerd:
*1. Mind Energy :
a> Is the mind made up of energy?
Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. ___Caroline Leaf, Ph.D., Communication Pathologist and Neuroscientist
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
b> Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain
Recent neuroscientific evidence can be interpreted in a way that suggests consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
c> Consciousness as a Form of Energy
An electromagnetic field is a type of material reality, and so is consciousness. Alternatively, consciousness is one form of energy, along with kinetic energy or electrical energy. If this hypothesis is true, then consciousness is material after all—though not in the Cartesian sense.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1758/chapter-abstract/141408450?redirectedFrom=fulltext
*2. What is Information? :
Linguistically and grammatically the word information is a noun but in actuality it is a process and hence is like a verb. . . .
What is the role of information in the propagation of life? What is the relationship of information to energy and entropy? What is the relationship of information to science?
___by Robert K Logan, physicist
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
That's why I get most of my information about the multiple roles of Information from professional scientists --- Paul Davies, Terrence Deacon, Santa Fe Institute --- and not from Twitter or Tik Tok gurus & influencers. Their work is on the periphery of current science, but it reveals signs of an emerging new Paradigm of Science, that I, not they, call Enformationism --- to distinguish from older -isms, such as Materialism, Idealism, or Spiritualism.The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. — Philosophim
My own investigations into Causal Information are not "objective", in the sense that I am not held accountable by specially-trained & narrowly-focused colleagues. Which is why I depend on amateur generalists on TPF to vett my amateur musings. Their philosophical skepticism should help to keep me honest. But it's possible that some of us merely share a bias toward Materialism or Idealism. So, it's up to me to question my own motives. :nerd:
Unfortunately, most modern Psychological research is still working from a Materialistic worldview*1. So, they may be blind to the evidence of immaterial "forces", such as those that Deacon describes in his books : Morphodynamics, etc. For example, Pavlov's salivating dogs were influenced by mental imagery to respond to the sound of a bell as-if it was the sight or smell of tasty food. But he didn't focus on how one form of Information (alarm sound) could transform in the mind into a representation of a different form of Meaning (smell or taste).I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. — Philosophim
Besides, most current experiments on Information Theory focus on quantification, storage, and communication, not on meaning & significance & semiology. So, what little work is being done on Holistic Information is left to Philosophy. By that, I mean scientists & scholars who are not afraid to speculate beyond the current paradigm. :smile:
*1.Eliminative materialism :
is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. . . . . Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that the class of entities does not exist . . . . Since eliminative materialism arguably claims that future research will fail to find a neuronal basis for various mental phenomena, it may need to wait for science to progress further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
PS___ I just received my copy of Steven Pinker's Rationality. He is a renowned professor of Psychology. But he describes his focus as "cognition", not "consciousness". And I suspect that most psychologists prefer to avoid becoming mired in unanswerable questions about imaginary minds. They leave such open-ended arguments to Philosophers, with nothing better to do than to look for the homunculus inside their own heads --- to study the mind with mental tools. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
That's where you and I agree & disagree. Many years ago, after becoming disillusioned by the fundamentalist religion of my youth, I may have tended toward the opposite worldview. But as I learned more about Reductive science --- took basic courses in all the major divisions of science in college --- I saw the "real" world differently. But I also began to appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of most world religions, especially their Integrated Holistic approach .I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core. — Philosophim
My emerging new worldview was influenced mainly by Quantum Physics and Information Theory, which I did not learn in college. Prominent physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" concept gave me a new way to understand the substance of the world, wherein the core is indeed "physical", but with tangible Matter animated & motivated by causal Energy, and organized by logical Information*1. More recently, quantum physicists began to equate Energy with both Matter and Information. There you have have a combination of Space (corporality) , Time (change), and Form (organization)*2. In Terrence Deacon's triad : Material Morphodynamics (form change) + Energetic Teleodynamics (directional change ; purpose) + Causal Homeodynamics (evolution). So. Enformationism is about all of the above, but not about Religion. Instead, its a novel philosophical & scientific understanding of the immaterial (quarks & qualia) foundations of Reality. :nerd:
*1.
a> In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. ____Wikipedia
b> In physics, energy is a property intrinsic to anything that is able to interact in the universe. ___Wiki
c> Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. ___Wiki
Note --- You could say that I am a Physicalist (matter + energy), but not a Materialist (matter is all). However, it now seems that shape-shifting Information (EnFormAction) is all.
*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence. :smile:I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. — Philosophim
*2. Purpose of Philosophy :
The study of philosophy enhances a person's problem-solving capacities. It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to our capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from large quantities of information.
https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/why-study-philosophy/why-study-philosophy.shtml
Rock on! New philosophical perspectives on specific material subjects (hard rocks) are indeed tested for empirical evidence. But new paradigms of universal concepts (worldviews) can only be tested for rational consistency, and conformance with ontological coherence. :cool:New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence. — Philosophim
Anthropologist Terrence Deacon's predecessor in the study of humanity, Polymath Gregory Bateson, unlike Shannon, defined "Information" as the Difference (distinction) that makes a Difference (meaning) to the observer*3. Since groundbreaking holistic scientists like Deacon & Bateson are not well known by professionals in the "hard" sciences, their vocabulary, and mine, may not be "palatable" to their Reductive way of thinking. But it should be acceptable to those of us in the "soft" science of Philosophy. The study of Minds does not lend itself to the knife-wielding dissection methods of Material science. :wink:I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself. — Philosophim
*3. In his 1972 book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson developed his idea of a "difference that makes a difference" in his talk to Alfred Korzybski's Institute of General Semantics. The talk was entitled "Form, Substance, and Difference." Form and substance referred to the famous Korzybski maxim "the map is not the territory."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bateson/
PS___Speaking of "vive la Difference"*4; one way to discuss the difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence is to think about the "hard" question of sexual attraction. For example, some men are crass materialists who view females as a loose aggregation of parts : t*ts, *ss, p*ssy, etc. But that analytical approach misses the intangibles of femininity that are so irresistible to those who appreciate the finer non-things of life. :joke:
*4. Who first said Vive la difference?
Anatole France is attributed with first declaring the wonderful refrain, “Vive la difference!” with particular reference to the differences between women and men.
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Again, you take my metaphors literally. The point of the question is that immaterial functions cannot be studied by empirical methods. There is no empirical evidence for Ideas ; only behavioral inferences, as you said. In other words, the tool for examining the Mind is the Mind itself. Materialists see the world through the (metaphorical) lens of the Mind, but can't see the Mind itself.You can examine a lit object under a magnifying glass, but you can't examine a sound under a magnifying glass. We're using the wrong tool and looking for the wrong thing. We measure consciousness by behavior. We experience our own consciousness, but no one else's. As such, we cannot measure our own subjective consciousness, nor any other. But we have determined that the brain affects consciousness over multiple scientific discoveries over decades now. Its incontrovertible. — Philosophim
Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. Not so. Mind is merely what the Brain does : its function, its action. The engine (a physical object) of an automobile directly affects the quality of Transportation, its immaterial action. What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. But a brain in a vat, with no connection to the outside world, would have no mental functions. We'll never know if the isolated brain has a self-concept, but I doubt it, because it would have no non-self to contrast with. A primary evolutionary function of Mind is to relate Self to Other (environment). :smile:
Note --- I like to use the Aristotelian concept of Metaphysics in place of "immaterial". But that term is now mainly associated with Catholic theology. Yet, five centuries BC, Ari added an appendix to his work on Physics (nature) for a discussion of philosophical Ideas --- over & above physical Things --- immaterial Concepts*1 about nature (Ontology). For Ari, those ideas are not super-natural, but merely immaterial Forms, or in modern terms : Information (EnFormAction). For example, Properties are not material things, but mental attributions.
*1. Aristotle About Ideas :
The Peri ide^on (On Ideas) is the only work in which Aristotle systematically sets out and criticizes arguments for the existence of Platonic forms. . . . . , and why and with what justification he favors an alternative metaphysical scheme. She examines the significance of the Peri ide^on for some central questions about Plato's theory of forms--whether, for example, there are forms corresponding to every property or only to some, and if only to some, then to which ones; whether forms are universals, particulars or both; and whether they are meanings, properties or both.
https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Aristotles-Criticism-Platos-Theory/dp/0198235496
Note --- Contra Plato's monistic universal Forms, Aristotle proposed the dualistic notion of HyloMorphism : a combination of Matter and Essence : car engine + transportation as a team. Different ways of looking at the same thing. The embodied causal force that enforms material objects is the Essence (property, qualia) of the Thing.
That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. If a pile of rocks suddenly formed a tower of stones, we would have to infer Mental Intention behind the balancing act*2. :joke:The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. — Philosophim
You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. You think Gnomon is proposing something unbelievable because it does not align with your materialistic beliefs. Scientific paradigms change, not only due to empirical evidence, but to philosophical perspective. "To biologists, it is puzzling that Kuhn failed to mention the two greatest paradigm shifts in the biological sciences — Darwinism and Mendelism." https://laskerfoundation.org/paradigm-shifts-in-science-insights-from-the-arts/ :nerd:No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time. — Philosophim
I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence. :cool:And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis. — Philosophim
PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science.
*2. We infer that a carefully balanced stone stack is not natural, but intentional
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
The Hard Problem is all about that familiar-yet-mysterious "something other". If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? How much does a Feeling weigh? If your Mind is instead an energetic force, what are its causal effects? Can you move an object with mind-force? If you can't produce those evidences, maybe Consciousness is indeed something other.But is what emerged something other than matter and/or energy? To my knowledge, no. If you think it is something other than matter and energy, do we have evidence of it existing apart from our imagination? — Philosophim
However, I'm not introducing something supernatural into the real world. My thesis postulates that the universe began with prototypes of Matter, Energy, and Mind in place. Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. Scientists do have names for some of those hypothetical proto-elements of modern reality : Quarks are unproven theoretical (imaginary) bits of matter with no discernible properties, but strange antithetical attributes : up/down ; top/bottom ; charm/strange. Is your consciousness one or more of those materials? Gluons are also theoretical binding forces with a metaphorical name. But, unlike real forces, Gluons cannot be measured by instruments. Are your Ideas & Feelings constructed of charming Quarks glued together by sticky Gluons? Do you have "evidence" of those elements of matter & energy, apart from the imagination of Quantum theorists studying the squishy quantum foundations of the physical world. Some accept those theories as descriptions of reality, even though the evidence is "locked away"*1 from the prying eyes of Materialists. Have you ever seen or touched a Mind Quark?
My thesis merely proposes a new name for a phenomenon/noumenon that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for ages. It seems obvious that mental qualities supervene (follow ; depend) on material properties, but how? I just flip the script to view Matter & Energy as dependent from a singular aboriginal predecessor, with the Potential for both Matter & Energy. Plato used a variety of labels for his First Cause : Logos, Form, etc. So, you can think of EFA metaphorically as a "seed" with the power to produce both the Logical Structure and the Material Form of Darwin's manifold "forms most beautiful". Is that close enough to philosophical Materialism for you? Or is it too close to philosophical Idealism? I could argue from that other direction, if I had time for such nonsense. :cool:
*1. By the mid-1970s, however, 10 years after quarks were first proposed, scientists had compiled a mass of evidence that showed that quarks do exist but are locked within the individual hadrons in such a way that they can never escape as single entities.
https://www.britannica.com/science/subatomic-particle/The-development-of-quark-theory
Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? Do you think Gnomon is asserting falsehoods on a philosophical discussion forum, or is he merely postulating alternative views for discussion? Is Physics the source of all Truth for you? :wink:No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. — Philosophim
*2. Postulate : to suggest or accept that a theory or idea is true as a starting point for reasoning or discussion.
Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. So it doesn't take much indirect evidence*3*4 to confirm their faith. But which are you going to believe : proponents or doubters? Personally, I don't know or care if they are real ; they serve a function for imagining the quantum realm as tiny particles of stuff, like the holy grail of ancient philosophical Atoms. :joke:So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet. — Philosophim
*3. "Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles," said Andrea Dainese, who is the ALICE physics coordinator.
https://www.space.com/large-hadron-collider-quark-mass-measurement
Note --- If you can't measure it, mathematize it.
*4. Are quarks hypothetical particles?
We will never know for sure.
That’s because quarks, by the nature of their interactions with each other through “gluons”, can never get far enough apart to be “observed” directly.
For many years most physicists thought quarks were just a Reductionist gimmick for remembering the rules of SU(3) — a symmetry of elementary particles also known (equally fancifully) as “the eightfold way”. But today the consensus is that they are real particles.
https://www.quora.com/Are-quarks-hypothetical-particles-Why
Note --- Consensus opinion, not empirical fact. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?Another way to express the Hard Problem is : "how does physical activity (neural & endocrinological) result in the meta-physical (mental) functions that we label "Ideas" and "Awareness"? — Gnomon
How does Physics (matter/energy) produce Metaphysical phenomena (mind/intention)? Nobody knows for sure, but there is a name for it. “Emergence” is a philosophical term for mysterious appearances with "no discernible path". Typically, the novel form is a whole system (with new properties & functions) derived from a previous system with different properties : e.g. solid an-isotropic crystalline Ice emerges from liquid isotropic water. In my thesis, I compare Mind-from-Matter emergence to physical Phase Transitions, not to occult Magic. :smile:I still see that as the easy problem, as its a very clear approach. Eventually after research, we find that X leads to Y. Its a problem, and I'm not saying its 'easy', its easy in contrast to the hard problem. Its called a hard problem because there's no discernible path or approach towards finding the answer. If you shape a question about consciousness that has a clear path forward to attempt to solve the problem, that is an easy problem. — Philosophim
Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
Note --- Emergence is typically associated with Holism and Systems Theory. Information is the "difference that makes a difference".
Teleological Evolution
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the normal macro level rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even ententional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html
“How” is a scientific question, in search of intermediate physical steps. “Why” is a philosophical question, in search of meaning or purpose. How Mental functions emerged from Material brains is subject to empirical evidence. Hence, relatively easy compared to the Why question. The evolutionary purpose of C is fairly obvious, in that knowing-that-you-know gives you the advantage of flexibility of approaches to a problem. But the Cosmic purpose of C is less obvious, in that mechanical operations, sans awareness, were able to function for 14B years. Why now, does the cosmos manifest a new property : Self-Conscious? We sentient beings appear driven to know where we came from, and where we are going ; on a cosmic scale. The final or ultimate answer to such holistic questions seems to require information about origins & destiny, which has been offered by religions for millennia. For those of us lacking direct access to a Cosmic Mind, mundane philosophy will have to do the best it can. :wink:The easy is the 'how', the hard is the 'why'. — Philosophim
The mind has three basic functions: thinking, feeling, and wanting. The three functions of the mind — thoughts, feelings and desires — can be guided or directed either by one's native egocentrism or by one's potential rational capacities. Egocentric tendencies function automatically and unconsciously.
https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-TheHumanMind.pdf
Not necessarily. The Enformationism thesis builds upon what we now know, by means of Scientific & Philosophical exploration, and to postulate a rational “third property” : EnFormAction, that has hitherto been called by another name, "Energy". EFA is envisioned as a kind of Proto-Energy (a seed) that can explain, not just material evolution, but the emergence of Mental properties, only after billions of years of “preparing the ground” for planting. The thesis acknowledges the logical question of “where did the Energy & Laws --- that propelled & guided evolution --- come from? Materialists typically take such immaterial necessities for granted. But philosophers tend to question everything, and to speculate beyond current knowledge. Do you think Science has all the answers that we need to know? Are you not curious about “Why” questions? A famous architect, an atheist, when questioned about his meticulous work, once said : “God is in the details”. :halo:What we don't do is assume because we cannot answer the details, that there is some unidentified third property that must be responsible for it. That's a "God of the gaps" argument. — Philosophim
I'll grant you that notion of progression in natural evolution. But you seem to think I'm proposing something supernatural, or otherworldly. Supposedly-scientific postulations such as Many Worlds & Multiverses, do indeed go beyond the only world we know anything about. But EFA is merely a new name for a natural function that is well-known, but not well understood : the emergence of novelty from evolutionary mechanisms.The only disagreement I have with you is that I believe we act exactly like physical machines, only more advanced. I do not see anything about humanity that is separate from the universe, but is one of the many expressions of the universe. — Philosophim
Do you think Darwinian Evolutionary Theory was the final word on how such things as eyes & minds came to exist in a material mechanical world? In recent years, scientists & philosophers have added such notions as Plasticity, Rapid Development, Epigenetics, and Cultural Evolution to Darwin's basic model. The article below illustrates the “gaps” in current biological science. The Modern Synthesis added genetic information to the crude notion of Random Mutation. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis added such concepts as multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, to Darwin's simple-but-powerful notion that biological novelty occurs without divine intervention. However, his evolutionary mechanism did assume that nature is capable of making informed choices (Selection) based on some logical criteria for fitness.
So, my thesis is just carrying-on the tradition of questioning supposedly "settled science". EnFormAction is merely a fresh look at an old scientific term for the physical Change Agency. EFA is not just brute force, but Directional Motivation (energy + information) . Evolution, like a guided-missile, seems to be moving, not randomly, but persistently toward more complexity & integration of sub-systems, with the human mind as the current apex. That direction is provided by the Information encoded in the program of evolution ; similar to what we now know is the key function of biological Genes, that Darwin had no mechanism for. :nerd:
Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
The Primordial State I referred to is not a scientific fact, but an informed guess. And the current best guess is that the universe started-out with no actual Matter, as we now know it. For example, both quarks & gluons are unobservable hypothetical entities, that are basically definitions without referent. So, I would prefer to call it an “Idea”, not a “Thing”. The postulated plasma had none of the structure* that we identify with Matter. So, cosmologists have proposed semi-magical “mechanisms” (e.g. instantaneous Inflation) to explain how the current clumpy configurations could have formed from such an unorganized state. My third category is merely a combination of Energy and Logic (the missing element of Darwinism). Anway, I figure that my informed guess is as valid as their speculation into the unknown. :cool:Also, my understanding is that this primordial state is also matter and energy. It is a 'thing', and until we can find the state of a thing that exhibits itself differently from matter and/or energy, it fits in one of those two categories. — Philosophim
Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note --- No structure = no matter
In physical cosmology, structure formation is the formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters and larger structures from small early density fluctuations . . . . . In this stage, some mechanism, such as cosmic inflation, was responsible for establishing the initial conditions of the universe: homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation
Note --- Cosmic Inflation is essentially mathematical magic: "Voila! an instant universe!" Is EFA any less plausible? -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Deacon's Causal Absence is also similar to the notion of Emptiness in Taoism :↪Gnomon
the idea of the absential resonates strongly with the experience of no-thing-ness that was foundational to my Zen practice. It's linked to the Hindu aphorism, neti neti, 'not this, not that' - which is about how the mind attaches to objects and soon learns to orient itself solely to the sensory domain, forgetting its true nature, which is not any thing. — Wayfarer
Thirty spokes share a central hub;
It is the hole that makes the wheel useful.
Mix water and clay into a vessel;
Its emptiness is what makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
Their emptiness is what makes them useful.
Therefore consider: advantage comes from having things
And usefulness from having nothing.
PS___Perhaps empty minds are also useful in some way. Meditation? :joke:
PPS___ Modernism seems to focus on advantage over others in the race to acquire things. Maybe having less can be useful? My penurious financial status seems to indicate an experiment to find the economic usefulness of nothingness. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
The website was the beginning of a long journey, and there are still mountains & swamps ahead. :↪Gnomon
Where is said thesis? — Patterner
Enformationism
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
The blog entries are ongoing, but the latest post, on Enformationism vs Panpsychism, is at http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I'll get back to you about your "easy" solution to the Consciousness problem. In my blog, I compare the emergence of Sentience to the emergence of Phase Transitions in physics. Due to complexity, the before & after are easy ("X leads to Y"), but tracking the steps in between is hard, in both cases. So, although we are making progress, both emergences remain somewhat mysterious, and emergence itself is scientifically controversial.I still see that as the easy problem, as its a very clear approach. Eventually after research, we find that X leads to Y. Its a problem, and I'm not saying its 'easy', its easy in contrast to the hard problem. Its called a hard problem because there's no discernable path or approach towards finding the answer. If you shape a question about consciousness that has a clear path forward to attempt to solve the problem, that is an easy problem. — Philosophim
BTW, I had to post the opinions you are responding to without editing --- ran out of time. I have now added to and revised the post, in hopes of making more sense, and conveying clearer ideas. :smile: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
My amateur philosophical thesis Enformationism, is not expressed in mathematical equations, or in logical syllogisms, but I hope it's more accessible to those without special training in those areas. I provide links & references & glossaries for those looking for more technical information. The website was a proto-essay, that is now sadly out of date, and full of evidence of ignorance. Lacking formal training in Philosophy, this forum has been my teacher for how to, and not to, argue for/against philosophical topics.Not arguing for proto-consciousness here.
Greene quote : ". . . . Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t." — Patterner
I also coined a neologism, EnFormAction --- to represent proto-Energy, "proto-Consciousness", and proto-Life --- as the predecessor of all emergent features of the expanding, complexifying, and maturing universe. EFA is basically multipurpose Causation (Energy) for a multi-form world. :smile: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Deacon's Incomplete Nature has become my "bible" for getting a scientist's understanding of certain mysteries of science, that we debate on this forum. My second volume is full of yellow marks and marginal annotations. His scientific credentials are in Anthropology (study of humanity), Evolutionary Biology, and Neuroscience. His associate, Jeremy Sherman, wrote a book expanding on the evolution of self-conscious animals : Neither Ghost Nor Machine, the Emergence and Nature of Selves.↪Gnomon
:up: Deacon's is one of those books I should get around to reading, although I know enough about him to be open to his approach. — Wayfarer
A key innovation of Deacon's book is the concept of Absential Aboutness (Potential), a novel feature of human awareness. Other topics are Holism, Emergence, Teleonomy/Teleology, Autogenesis, and Constraint (natural laws). It's a naturalistic account for Life, Mind, Soul/Self, Sentience, and Consciousness. :smile: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?did a good job of answering these materialistic challenges to the Hard Problem, with philosophical argumentation. But scientific evidence carries more weight on this forum. So, I'd like to give it a shot, with a focus on the distinction between Physics and Meta-Physics, as postulated in my own amateur Enformationism thesis. Way may not agree with all of my arguments or evidence. :smile:
We determine that computers-do-not-experience-subjectively in the same way we "know" that other humans do experience the world in a manner similar to our own : by rational inference from behavior. So, the Hard Problem is not about the behavioral evidence of Consciousness, but about its lack of material properties. :smile:You have to understand, if you accept the hard problem as true, you can NEVER state, "Computers do not have a subjective experience." You don't know. Can you be a computer processing AI algorithms? Nope. So if we create a machine and program that exhibits all the basic behaviors of consciousness, you have no idea if it has a subjective experience or not. — Philosophim
For my thesis, Consciousness (C) is an immaterial state of awareness, that arises from a physical process, not an entity that exists as an independent thing. I compare it to the mysterious emergence of physical Phase Transitions, such as water to ice*1. Some ancient thinkers, lacking a notion of physical energy, imagined the living & thinking & purposeful Soul, as human-like agent, or as something like the invisible breath or wind that you can feel, and can see it move matter around. Modern Materialism seems to criticize attempts to explain C, based on the assumption that the explainer is referring to a Soul, that can walk around as a ghost.1. Consciousness is able to exist despite a lack of physical capability to do so. — Philosophim
However, if you think of C as a noumenal form of Energy, or EnFormAction as I call it, then its existence is physical only in its causal consequences, not as a material object. We can't see or touch Energy, so we infer its immaterial existence from its effects on matter : changes of form or state. Those transformations are noumenal inferences instead of phenomenal sensations. Consequently, C doesn't function like a machine, but more like magic; hence the difficulty of explaining it in terms of mechanisms.
The "physical capability" of Energy to exist is taken for granted, because we can detect its effects by sensory observation, even though we can't see or touch Energy with our physical senses*2. Mechanical causation works by direct contact between material objects. But Mental Causation works more like "spooky action at a distance". So, Consciousness doesn't work like a physical machine, but like spooky gravity, or metaphysical intention. :smile:
*1. New research details water's mysterious phase transitions :
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-mysterious-phase-transitions.html
*2. Evidence of Energy :
Therefore, although energy itself isn't visible, you can detect evidence of energy.
https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/EvidenceofEnergy.pdf
Again, in my thesis, Consciousness is defined as a process or function of physical entities. We have no knowledge of consciousness apart from material substrates. But since its activities are so different from material Physics, philosophers place it in a separate category of Meta-Physics. And religious thinkers persist in thinking of Consciousness in terms of a Cartesian Soul (res cogitans), existing in a parallel realm.2. Demonstrate a conscious entity that has no physical or energetic correlation. — Philosophim
Despite Life After Death interpretations, there is no verifiable evidence of C manifesting apart from an animated physical body*3. But my thesis postulates that both Physical Energy and Malleable Matter are emergent from a more fundamental element of Nature : Causal EnFormAction*4 (EFA). The Big Bang origin state was completely different from the current state, in that there was no solid matter as we know it. Instead, physicists imagine that the primordial state was a sort of quark-gluon Plasma, neither matter nor energy, but with the potential (EFA) for both to emerge later. And ultimately for the emergence of Integrated Information as Consciousness. :smile:
*3. Consciousness after death :
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, we don't know. There is certainly no verifiable, repeatable evidence that the consciousness continues to exist. Nor is there any particular scientific reason to believe it does.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-our-consciousness-after-we-die-Does-it-simply-cease-to-exist-or-does-it-continue-on-in-some-form
*4. Mass & Energy are forms of Information :
the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, stating that information transcends into mass or energy depending on its physical state;.
https://www.sci.news/physics/information-fifth-state-matter-10638.html
The existence of Matter & Energy is taken for granted, due to evidence of the senses, but the origin of the material world remains a mystery : is it self-existent, or contingent? The Big Bang theory is based on physical evidence observed 14 billion years after the hypothetical event. We now grudgingly accept that our world is temporary, only because the math sputters-out at at T=0/∞. Is that more like 12am or 12pm on the clock? The evidential Gap, beyond the evidence, can be filled with speculation of Creation, or a Tower-of-Turtles hypothesis.3. If consciousness is not matter and/or energy, please demonstrate evidence of its existence without using a God of the Gaps approach. — Philosophim
Unlike the material world, we require no math or theories to provide evidence of Self-Consciousness. It's self-evident ; mental ideas are all we know about anything. But Consciousness in other beings is not so obvious. Neurologists look for sensory signs of Awareness, such as verbal behavior, arousal, brain activity and purposeful movement. So, it's obvious that Consciousness does not exist in isolation, but is dependent on a> material body, b> neural complexity, and c> animation of body. But what is Life, and how do we know it exists? Schrodinger postulated that Life could be defined as 'negative entropy' — something not falling into chaos and approaching 'the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death'. Negentropy is positive Energy (or EFA), animating the material world.
Similarly, Tononi's Integrated Information Theory quantifies Consciousness in terms of Complexity and Wholeness of living systems. Thereby, he hopes to provide quantitative evidence of its existence, and perhaps of its relative quality. My own thesis, defines Consciousness in terms of Energy (EnFormAction), and of Holistic Integration of sub-systems. Yet, our sensory evidence still requires physical inputs, just as any other form of Information reception. That's why, for behavioral observations, we require rational inferences.
Therefore, Philosophical questions about Mind & Consciousness depend on personal reasoning; logical deduction from the meta-physical evidence of intentional activities. If you can't make that computation from available evidence, then you live in a matterful but mindless & meaningless world. And the mystery of Consciousness is dispelled, as a ghost, with a wave of dismissal. :smile: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Numbers, and other mental concepts, do indeed seem to be a product of brain activities. Yet the relevant question is not what are they made of, but "How Mind Emerged From Matter", which is the subtitle of Terrence Deacon's masterwork : Incomplete Nature. Another way to express the Hard Problem is : "how does physical activity (neural & endocrinological) result in the meta-physical (mental) functions that we label "Ideas" and "Awareness"? Scientific investigations have explained how physical actions in an internal combustion engine can result in the function we call "Motion" or "Transportation". It's all push & shove of atoms on atoms. Yet, neurons are not spark plugs and hormones are not gasoline. So, what's-pushing-on-what to allow the brain to produce Mental Activity?The brain produces or is involved in producing neurochemicals, endocrines and so on, but it doesn’t produce numbers or words. Your ontology is simply that because matter is fundamental, the brain is material then it must be the case. — Wayfarer
I've been asking for some time now, if the brain doesn't produce them, where are they? What material are they made out of? I've clearly pointed out that the brain, which is physical, can retain information, make judgements, etc. This includes numbers. — Philosophim
There are other kinds of physical activity (processes) that defy the simple mechanical laws of Newton. Even that genius was baffled by the "function"*1 of Gravity to move atoms without touching them. Einstein later, in a quantum context, called such mysterious activity : "spooky action at a distance". What's spooky about Potential*2 is that it's not mechanical, but geometric ("warped space"). Ironically, saying that mathematical relations can change the shape of the immaterial "fabric" of emptiness (the container of matter) sounds like magic. Yet, modern physicists accept that bizarre notion, because they have no better explanation.
I'm no Einstein, but I have learned from physicists, such as Paul Davies, and neuroscientist Terrence Deacon, that the Absence of matter can have real-world effects. What these nothings have in common is something similar to mathematical relationships (ratios) that we now know as various forms of In-form-ation. For my thesis, I call the progenitor of all emergent sub-forms in the world : EnFormAction --- the power to transform. When matter changes form, we attribute the cause to Energy. But, like Gravity, we only know what it does physically, not what it is essentially. For scientific purposes, we just label the observation with a noun name, like "Energy", and define it with a verb name, like "Causation". But the essence or quality of the Change Agent is left undefined ; perhaps because to explain it might seem to attribute magical powers to nothingness, contrary to the belief system of determinstic Materialism.
FWIW, my answer to your question (about the substance of the mind machine), is that mental Functions (Mind/Consciousness/Awareness) are not made of massive Matter, but consists of causal Information (power to transform). Recent scientific investigations have found that Information is much more than the empty entropic vessels of Shannon's definition. Information also is found in material & energetic forms. So, we can infer that all Causation in the world is "made", not of Matter, but of Power/Potency. And the effects of that causal ability on matter is what we call Change. The bottom line of my own approach to Consciousness questions is to propose something more philosophical and less scientific as the fundamental "substance"*3 of the world : cosmic Potential, that Deacon called Teleodynamics*4, or what I call EnFormAction. :smile:
*1. Function : an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
Note --- Mind functions are not material objects, but mental subjective processes working toward a future state or purpose.
*2. Potential :
a> having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
b> latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
c> existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.
*3. Substance :
Essence ; in the history of Western philosophy, an entity whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a potentiality from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
*3. How does Aristotle define substance?
Contrary to what was said in the Categories and the Physics, Aristotle seems to say that the term “substance” applies most properly not to a compound of matter and form such as an elephant or a vase, but to the Form {logical pattern] that makes that compound the kind of thing it is.
*4. Teleodynamics :
Teleodynamics emerges when multiple self-organizing phenomena generate forms (constraints) that serve as the boundary conditions that make the other self-organizing processes possible, resulting in a spontaneous tendency for the self-generation and self-maintenance of the whole.
https://teleodynamics.org/
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
As I said in a post above, it's your interpretation of my analogy that is "wrong". Believe it or not, I do know the difference between measurable Matter & its measurement : Mass. But, for metaphorical purposes, I may use the terms interchangeably, since they refer to the same "stuff".I think [Gnomon's] fundamentally wrong because he has m = matter instead of m = mass, the correct equivalence. — ucarr
Appealing to for an authoritative opinion won't help, because he & I don't speak the same language, so we are not talking about the same things. Besides, his confident credence, and incredulity toward immaterial concepts, are based on his own secular religion of Scientism. And his infallible scriptures are those of Materialism and various other Atheistic alternatives to theistic religions. If you subscribe to those anti-philosophy sources of "facts", you can high-five 180. But, due to a matter-biased (matter over mind) worldview, his assessments of Gnomon's thesis & intentions are completely erroneous.
For the record, my own worldview is Deistic, which has no scriptures or prescribed practices, just an acknowledgment of the implicit Teleonomy of Evolution, to which Terrence Deacon devoted several chapters in his Incomplete Nature. My own thesis does not claim to be scientific, but it is derived from disruptive discoveries of Quantum & Information theories, that undermine the Materialism & Determinism of 17th century science.
180 seems to think that philosophy began in the 17th century, and anything prior to that is "woo woo religion". But my philosophical vocabulary goes back to Plato & Aristotle, who did not practice the Greek religions of their time, but whose ideas did influence the theology of the Roman Christian religion. Yet, their rudimentary terminology is still used by philosophers 2500 years later. If you reject the terminology of P & A, you will also misunderstand the words that I use to describe EnFormAction. And, in my thesis, EFA is the hypothetical precursor of Energy and of Life, and of Consciousness, for which materialistic Science has no answer. :smile:
Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Teleonomy :
What does Deacon add into his teleodynamic that goes beyond teleonomic? He defines his
teleodynamic as"exhibiting end-directedness" and then adds the highly specific and technical criteria "consequence-organized features constituted by the co-creation, complementary constraint, and reciprocal synergy of two or more strongly coupled morphodynamic processes."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Note --- IMHO, Deacon's teleonomy is essentially the same as that of 19th century Deism. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
FWIW, the "shapeshifter" analogy was not intended to be a technical analysis of Einstein's equation, but merely borrowing his three elements to represent some of the forms that my hypothetical Generic EFA can transform into. For convenience, I used "Matter" instead of "Mass" to, metaphorically, represent the second element. Please accept that as a figure of speech, not a technical description. Besides, I was not commenting on the "invisibility of m and c2", but characterizing their immateriality. Do you disagree with that portrayal of Energy, Mass & Constant as abstract mathematical concepts, not visible to the physical senses? :cool:I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance. — Gnomon
Here's why I read your examination of Einstein's equation as commentary on the invisibility of m and c2: — ucarr
I think you missed the point of my attempt to convey the multi-potent nature of EFA metaphorically. It was an "example", not an "examination". But note that I use the term "substance" as Aristotle & Spinoza did : in reference to the immaterial essence (form ; logical structure) of the object in question. EnFormAction is imagined as a precursor of Energy, not literally the same thing. And it's not a "material platform", but an immaterial essence (potential ; qualia). "Essence" is an ontological idiom, not a scientific term. :nerd:This is where you're heading with your examination of e=mc2. You seem to be claiming Enformaction is a substance that is the material platform for energy, mass and the velocity of light. — ucarr
Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Aristotle turns in Ζ.4 to a consideration of the next candidate for substance : essence. ('Essence' is the standard English translation of Aristotle’s curious phrase to ti ên einai, literally “the what it was to be” for a thing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
What's the meaning of Essence?
essence. noun. es·sence ˈes-ən(t)s. 1. : the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Does that explanation imply that the "Hard Problem" is scientifically inscrutable, because the scientific method studies physical sensations from environment (other), not metaphysical experiences from the interior milieu (self)? Feelings are communications from-Self-to-Self, in a secret language. Even so, Philosophers are not deterred by open-ended questions --- we can debate them interminably.That is, consciousness is surprising. If all we knew about were the facts of physics, and even the facts about dynamics and information processing in complex systems, there would be no compelling reason to postulate the existence of conscious experience. If it were not for our direct evidence in the first-person case, the hypothesis would seem unwarranted; almost mystical, perhaps. — Chalmers
That's a good explanation of the problem. — Patterner
Animals & Humans & Scientists can send & receive subjective feelings only by translating them into mnemonic gestures & conventional symbols. So, to learn what it feels like to be a sonar-experiencing bat, you would have to trade bodies with the bat, not just words & signs. Objective information is always second-person. But first-person feelings are what distinguish Self from Other.
According to Shannon, Information communication is always surprising (foreign), but feeling is familar. The barren bits of information in a computer, stripped of meaning, can nevertheless convey normalized significance to a mind, by use of symbols, analogies, & metaphors. But they can't convey the experience of a feeling via such indirect means : you had to be-here-now. :smile:
Mnemonic : an action that reminds us of something we already know from past experience.
Note --- For example, mammals display emotions in actions similar to those of humans. So, we can understand, by analogy, what they are feeling, even though we can't directly feel what they are feeling. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Actually, I didn't comment on the visibility of Mass & C. But, for the record, all of the equation's elements are imaginary & invisible abstractions. And none of them is tangible Matter, although Mass is a numerical measurement (mentalization) of Matter, a concept, not an object. So, I don't know how you decided that the invisibility of of numerical concepts contradicts my description of Einstein's equation, in which I referred to Matter, not Mass, as "tangible". Does any of that "matter" to you? :joke:You have described Einstein's equation as an expression of three states of being: a) invisible; b) tangible; c) non-dimensional. On one side of the equation you have the invisible state; on the other side of the equation you have mass and the speed of light as tangible matter. You agree that mass and the speed of light, contrary to your description of e=mc2, possess invisibility. — ucarr
PS___ One inference from the equation is that invisible Energy can transform into visible & tangible Matter. But we only know Matter (actual) by measuring the "gravity energy weight" of Mass (potential) with our senses. Energy & Mass are both forms of causal EnFormAction, hence Potential Mental (subjective cause) not Actual Material (objective effect). That's a key distinction in the EFA thesis : the mental map is not the material terrain.
Sorry, I don't follow your definition of "unary". I assumed it was a reference to Unity or Holism. Personally, I would distinguish metaphysical (mental) "numbers" from the physical (material) objects they enumerate. But, as forms of Information, I can agree that numbers could be construed as a "bridge" (link) between the material (real) world, and the immaterial (ideal) world. The link between mental (nominal) number and material (actual) object is symbolic (pointing). :nerd:Let me add that, in my view, numbers, like the environment in which they have meaning, are physical. . . . . If numbers are not precisely physical, then they're a good candidate for the bridge between the material and immaterial worlds. — ucarr
Physical :
a> relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
b> relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Ironically, our intangible mental images are all we know of the tangible world. Our physical senses translate warm-blooded matter into cold (rational) concepts. Brrr! :smile:Intangibles offer cold comfort for flesh ‘n blood mortals. — ucarr
Can We Know Objective Reality?
The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object.
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes, both are numbers quantifying qualities (properties). Properties (attributes) are rationally inferrable, but not sensibly visible. Why do you ask? :nerd:Question - Are not both mass and the speed of light invisible? — ucarr
I was not familiar with the term "unary", and I still don't how it is different from "Unitary" or "Holism". Unitary may describe a unique system of parts that together can be considered a single Form (morpho). Holism is similar, but focused more on the internal interrelationships that allow the parts to function together as a unit (teleo).My notion of unary physicalism, like your EnFormAction, encompasses the four phase states you name and furthermore, I currently speculate it also encompasses mind and consciousness via absential materialism, a label that I use to name Deacon's hierarchy of dynamisms: thermo, morpho and teleo. — ucarr
For my personal philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between "physical" and "material". Material (morpho) typically includes the stuff our senses perceive (what is seems to be), while Physical (thermo) includes the invisible forces & properties that cause a thing to act & react as it does. Please give me a brief definition of "unary physicalism" and "absential materialism". :smile:
Please remember that I have no formal training in academic Philosophy. So please tell me how you distinguish between "scientific method" and "ontic grammar". Is the latter unscientific speculation? If so, how does it differ from philosophical speculation or scientific hypothesis? :wink:Might it be correct to say your theory encompasses a system that, going forward from antiquity, encompasses both scientific method and ontic grammar. — ucarr -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
With no background in academic philosophy, I have little depth in the Dualism debate, so I'm just reaching here, not "grasping". My self-acquired quantum physics & information-based worldview seems to require an Idealist foundation ; yet my mundane activities require a Realist belief system. As I have expressed it before : "for all practical (scientific) purposes, I am a Materialist, but for theoretical (philosophical) considerations I am a Mentalist". So, I'm a hybrid animal : an innocent mind in a cartesian demon's lair, so to speak.Notice that the realist objection to this argument is invariably along the lines that 'the world must exist anyway, regardless of any observing mind'. But say that this statement always includes an implicit perspective even while conceiving of a world in the absence of an observer. Without a perspective or scale, nothing meaningful can be said or thought about what exists. — Wayfarer
My justification for a Mind-first ontology is based --- not on subtle philosophical deduction --- but on the scientific ubiquity of multiform Information, which includes mathematical Ratios, mental Reasoning, and physical inter-relationships, that include so-called "forces"*1 (gravity, sub-atomic bonds) that we observe as "spooky action at a distance"*2. Causal/Absential Information is common to both matter and mind. Therefore, for completely different reasons I came to the same conclusion as Spinoza : that the essence of the world is not a material substance, but a labelled-yet-undefinable abstract concept : God or Nature . . . or demon?.
The Realist worldview seems to assume that Matter is the primary onticity*3, and the only kind of thing that exists. This is understandable, because our 5 senses are tuned for detection of non-self objects outside the Mind. But the Idealist presumption is that Mind-itself is the primary kind of being, hence Body/Matter must be dependent upon or emergent from Mind-stuff. So, the Idealist belief requires a Universal Other Mind (God or what?) to provide the "implicit perspective" that somehow creates the "substance/essence" of a real world, for our senses to sense.
Since several millennia of dualistic debate have not resolved the tension between opposing "implicit" perspectives, why can't we take a lesson from Einstein's Relativity, and conclude that both views may be ultimately true, but the local framing is contingently true? If your frame requires worship, so be it. But my hybrid frame only invites curiosity. :smile:
*1. Physical Forces : that by which we measure changes in matter
Consciousness : that by which we know changes in the world
*2. Do forces actually exist or are they merely mathematical constructions that explain real phenomena?
Forces are real phenomena that exist in the physical world. In physics, forces are described and understood through mathematical models, but they are not merely mathematical constructions. Forces can be observed and measured, and they have real effects on the motion and interactions of objects in the universe.
https://www.quora.com/Do-forces-actually-exist-or-are-they-merely-mathematical-constructions-that-explain-real-phenomena
Note --- Forces are not "observed" by the senses, but inferred by the rational faculty of Mind. The physical effects are real, but the mental knowledge is ideal.
*3. Onticity : essence of being
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Immaterial (abstract) entities (essences), such as Consciousness, only "show-up" when a rational Mind infers*1 an invisible immaterial Function associated with a complex material object (brain). You can't "see" the function with your eyes, only with your rational faculty. The mind-function of a brain exists only as a mental representation of an invisible immaterial process of transforming incoming data (grist for the mill) into meaningful outputs (baked bread).If non-physicals are showing up you should observe they always can be mapped to a physical brain in location and time. — Mark Nyquist
So, to equate Mind with Brain is to commit the Map/Territory semantic fallacy*2. A Function*3 is not a material object, but a mathematical & semantic relationship. For example, "computation" is a function of a mechanical computer. But it's also a function of a human "computer"*4. In such cases, the relevant input & output are mathematical concepts, such as numbers. And the physical materials (copper, steel, plastic, proteins, neurons) are irrelevant to the causal calculation*5, they are merely carriers of information, not the content. Mind is what the brain does, not what it is. Matter is merely the vessel (cup), Mind is the wine. :smile:
*1. An inference is the process of reasoning from what we think is true to what else is true.
*2. Map–territory relation :
Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
*3. What is function and example?
In particular, a function maps each input to exactly one output.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-function-in-math-definition-examples.html
*4. What did it mean to be a human computer?
Before there were actual computers, they were people. At NASA, women had to do all the math and science calculations for aircraft and space missions. From 1935 to 1942 more women began to work at NACA because many men volunteered to be in the war. The women that worked for NASA were often called "Human Computers".
https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/amst_humancomp/
*5. Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and process. Deacon sees constraint as a form of causality which can be generated intrinsically, simply by processes interacting with each other.
https://somatosphere.com/2014/terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature.html/
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I apologize. I was merely looking for an alternative to "Pessimistic". And the colloquial usage of Cynical seemed to imply a generally gloomy outlook. The ancient Cynics were merely dispassionate. I didn't mean to label you as a fault-finding person. Merely one who can't smell the flowers among the thorns. :joke:I'm not sure about that, but I do know that people use philosophy in this way. I wonder why you have introduced cynicism when nothing I have written is cynical. — Tom Storm
What is it called when someone is cynical?
The words misanthropic and pessimistic are common synonyms of cynical. While all three words mean "deeply distrustful,"
Your post seemed to imply that the world was going to hell in a handbasket. So, I thought I'd cheer you up with some more positive news --- on an evolutionary scale --- not breaking news of the latest broken bones & spirits. I don't classify myself as either Pessimistic or Optimistic, but more like a Peptomist. I see the bad stuff peripherally, but I prefer to focus on the good stuff. And I "see" evidence of long-term progress in the world on a cosmic scale, that gives me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. :wink:Why did you drop this question into your response? When did evolution come up? When did progress come up? Are you on a kind of automatic pilot of pedagogical didacticism? — Tom Storm
Didactic pedagogy means the procedure of teaching that follows guiding principles in a scientific approach. In other words, is a strategy of presenting knowledge, information, and ideas to students in a structurally organized way.
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with New Age or Eastern religions. As a scientific concept, Holism is now called Systems Theory. Reductionism is appropriate (not erroneous) for scientific applications, such as chemistry, which depends on knowing how single elements affect combinations. For example, carbon typically contributes energetic bonds to compounds, such as coal and carbohydrates. But flammable hydrogen & oxygen combine to produce fire-quenching water H2O. Hence, its holistic properties are different from those of the elements.Holism is one of your main themes?
What are some specific ways materialism reasons erroneously when arriving at its reductionism? — ucarr
Holism though, is more appropriate for philosophical applications that study complex combinations of elements. The Santa Fe Institute, near Los Alamos, New Mexico studies complex systems, both natural and artificial, to discover their properties & potentialities. The human Mind is an example of an extremely complex biological system that mysteriously gives rise to the non-physical topic of this thread : Consciousness. If you dissect a brain down to sub-atomic particles, you will not find any consciousness, because it is a holistic quality, that emerges only when all the parts are integrated into a multi-level functional system. :smile:
Systems Theory/Holism :
A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism
Holism and Reductionism :
Holism emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of different aspects of behavior, whereas reductionism breaks down behavior into simpler components. Holism considers the context and complexity of human behavior, while reductionism seeks to isolate and study individual components in isolation.
https://studymind.co.uk/notes/holism-and-reductionism/
What is an example of Complexity Science?
For example, the Internet can be represented as a network composed of nodes (computers) and links (direct connections between computers). Other examples of complex networks include social networks, financial institution interdependencies, airline networks, and biological networks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
No. I know nothing about Lund, beyond the words of the quote. I found that definition on Google, to provide you with an "expert" opinion on "theoretical philosophy", since you seemed to be unaware of the concept. My "distinction" between "theoretical" math and "practical" science is that math deals with abstract (mental) concepts, while science works on concrete (material) objects. For that reason, Math is more like philosophy than chemistry. :nerd:Since you cite this quote from Lund University, I assume it speaks for you. Is it your understanding principles, by definition, are theoretical and therefore subject to revision? . . . . I'm not sure I buy your distinction . . . — ucarr
Can pure mathematics be considered a branch of philosophy? :
Pure mathematics can be considered a branch of philosophy in the sense that it deals with fundamental questions about the nature of reality
https://www.quora.com/Can-pure-mathematics-be-considered-a-branch-of-philosophy
I don't understand your characterization of "multi-mode" vs "unitary". I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance.What’s important for Enformaction is that it not distort the degree to which its multi-mode holism differs from my unary physical holism. The difference is small, not large. The former parallels material/undefined/immaterial whereas the latter subsumes these three categories. — ucarr
But my thesis goes even further to postulate that several "modes" or phases of unitary EFA are : Energy, Matter, and Mind. I also apply that notion of transformation to the common-but-mysterious physical Phase Transitions, such as plasma-water-steam-ice. In terms of Deacon's triad, EFA serves the causal functions of Thermodynamic, Morpheodynamic, and Teleonomic. Are you familiar with the Holistic concept of Emergence? Will you explain how your "unitary physical holism" works? :smile:
EnFormAction :
For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it 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.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Holism, reductionism and emergence :
Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts [in relation] to a whole [system].
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Sorry to hear that gloomy outlook. It seems to focus on the small percentage of bad stuff that the media calls "news" : "if it bleeds, it leads". I would hope that philosophers could ignore the gory headlines to see the 98% of good stuff that goes un-reported. Ironically, some people seem to think that cynicism makes you appear smarter than the happy-go-lucky sheep.My own speculative tendencies wouldn't consider human life to be significant enough to be rated as a 'growing awareness'. Perhaps a growing malignancy if we consider pollution and climate change. — Tom Storm
Like the horizon, Utopia is always somewhere off in the future, and recedes as fast as we approach. But the confidence that we can get closer is what drives the change-agents in the world. For example, catalytic entrepreneur Elon Musk is afraid of a Matrix-like takeover by AI machines, and possible eradication of meat people. But he retains a positive outlook, that humans will survive, and perhaps prevail, by adapting, even by emigrating to Mars. That dynamic of bad now vs good future seems to be what drives him to be such a technological innovator.
Throughout the centuries, philosophers have been acutely aware of the bad stuff, but stoically focused on making it better, incrementally, bit by bit. Biological evolution takes eons to make significant improvements in the status quo. And social improvement does not advance nearly as fast as technological progression. But that's only because society consists of conflict-of-interest people, not cog & wheel machines. A philosophy of Optimism may not be justified, but Pragmatism works. :smile:
Why do so many people believe that cynicism is a sign of intelligence?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/the-myth-the-cynical-genius
Evolutionary Progress?
How could anyone who accepts an evolutionary view of life deny that progress has occurred?
https://watermark.silverchair.com/50-5-451.pdf -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
If the material universe popped into existence with a "bang", can we imagine that, like a planted seed, it came pre-set with un-realized Potentials that took eons to mature (actualize) into the complex cosmos we humans are now scanning with our far-seeing technological eye-extensions? The Webb space-scope is said to be looking back to the beginning of the universe, even as it reflects our insignificance to the near-infinite bubble of being that was born in a Planck-scale bit of possibility.Why specifically the formulation of growing self-awareness? — Tom Storm
Was "awareness" a property or quality of the nascent cosmos? If not, how did sentience & consciousness emerge from an explosion of space & time & matter & energy? Is it not reasonable to say that there is a "growing awareness" or that the "cosmos has, eventually become aware of itself", only in the last few millennia of evolution? Is it possible that Awareness evolved, along with Life and Mind, from an insentient & lifeless state of fecund oblivion?
Of course, such poetic imagery is forbidden for pragmatic science, but is a bit of creative license allowed on a philosophy forum? :smile:
Oblivion : the state of being unaware or unconscious of what is happening.
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I suspect that --- for fear of straying into the seductive mindset of spooky Spirituality --- those who espouse the metaphysical doctrine of Materialism dare not use their imaginative faculty (Reason) to infer intangible invisible subjective abstractions, that exist only in the matterless, and unverifiable, realm of Ideas, Concepts, Thoughts & Fantasies.How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
I'm fine with that. — Relativist
However, as an amateur philosopher, with no job or tenure to project, I feel free to follow the evidence of inference wherever it leads ; yea, unto the shadow of Religion, that enthralls the "weak" minds of millions around the world. Gods & ghosts are indeed "immaterial objects". But so are Logic & Math & Reason itself ; "reified" as Abstract Nouns : "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object". Such as Love, Beauty, Honesty, Democracy, and yes Consciousness.
All of those immaterial concepts are held dearly by some people, despite their immateriality, and the implication of some kind of parallel existence in a Platonic realm. So, I ask myself : am I one of those gullible "anti-realists", who can't discern the difference between an abstraction and an actuality? Are you "fine" with that kind of subjective imagination? Some on this forum are appalled at the conceit that immaterial abstractions could exist in a material world. :wink:
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Historically, modern Science emerged from the traditions of ancient Philosophy. But in the interim, Religion claimed authority over both. When the Enlightenment gave birth to Empirical Science, it threw-out the philosophical baby with the bath-water. The Materialism and Scientism found on this forum are the off-spring of that "disjunction" between Ideal & Real worldviews. EFA is, in part, an attempt to heal the rift between the science of Matter, and the science of Mind. :smile:You talk of weaving together the disjunctions of science and philosophy; can you name a specific problem that Enformaction is attacking? — ucarr
Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science
Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist)
Both Math and Language are theoretical in conception (principles), but practical in application (details). :nerd:You say math is theoretical; some components of pure math are theoretical; to claim math in general is theoretical is, to my thinking, like saying language in general is theoretical. — ucarr
Theoretical Philosophy is the study of the principles for human knowledge, the development of the sciences and the basis for scientific knowledge, the principles of thought, argumentation and communication, metaphysics and the history of the subject itself.
https://www.fil.lu.se/en/department/subjects-at-the-department/theoretical-philosophy/
The "substance" I was referring to is essential, not material. In my thesis, that "substance" is identified with Generic Information, as implied by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophically influential "it from bit" postulation, which has been refined & expanded in recent years by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute. From that perspective, existence is "grounded" in dynamic Potential, not inert Dirt. :chin:You talk of disciplines both empirical and theoretical inhabiting one, universal substance. Such language, contrary to your arguments toward establishing an immaterial ground for existence (it from bit), suggest a largely unexamined, foundational belief existence is grounded within the material (I know, the merger is intentional, that is, during those moments when it strikes your fancy). — ucarr
Substance Monism. The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
A bird in hand is an actuality ; birds in a bush are merely possibilities. Science studies actuality ; Philosophy studies possibilities. My BothAnd philosophy combines dual aspects of the world : the here & now materiality, and the future & past ideality : not yet real or no longer real. The point being that Either/Or is reductive & eliminative, while BothAnd is holistic & constructive. :wink:You turn the rapier point around to me when you endorse both_and over either_or. My retort is to declare "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." — ucarr
Is that your disdainful view of philosophical speculation? :cool:I know that materialism rendered a holy of holies becomes a death trap. At the other end of the spectrum, skittering around, spewing glib, scientific catchphrases scintillating with the current cachet in smartypants verbiage becomes another death trap. — ucarr
. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
I'm fine with that. — Relativist -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Coincidentally, I was just this morning skimming Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, which discusses the causal "Absences" (possibilities ; potentials) in the world. The term "Platonic Realism" caught my roving eye, because I had always associated Mr. P with Idealism. So, I looked it up. Apparently, it's a middle position between Subjective Idealism and Objective Realism.For the very simple reason that if numbers are real, but not material, then there are real things that are not material. The intellectual contortions that modern philosophers perform to avoid this conclusion are striking. That SciAm article you linked - very good article - says:
there are some important objections to (platonic) realism. If mathematical objects really exist, their properties are certainly very peculiar. — Wayfarer
Cosmology & anthropology tell us that the physical/material Universe existed for billions of Earth-years before subjective/reflective minds emerged, to "see" what can't be seen. So, matter/energy existed objectively before anyone was capable of abstracting physical stuff into mental ideas. Hence, Subjective Idealism would only make sense if "god is always around in the quad" to be the subjective observer/imaginer sustaining the world-idea.
Of course, that notion will not fly for Atheist/Materialists. But from the agnostic position of the Enformationism thesis, the hypothetical Enformer/Programmer/Creator fills the role of sustainer, by creating an evolutionary algorithm, which encodes the programmer's intentions into the Laws/Norms of Nature. One set of those natural "laws" would be the Logic of Physics, which we abstracting creatures interpret as Mathematics. Those mathematical "laws" are ideal/mental, but independent of late-emerging human observers.
Deacon's "Absences" may be construed as the Programmer's intentions, that those of us inside the program infer as invisible "Causes" & Potentials" in the real world. Which are also the invisible logical "Structure" of the physical world, that scientists & mathematicians infer, but cannot see. Of course, these speculations are just philosophical metaphors for thinking about the immaterial aspects of Reality that we call Ideas, Laws, Logic, Cause & such. Such notions are real only in the sense of Platonic Realism : "real but not material". :smile:
Platonic Realism :
In other words, reality exists independent of anyone's perception or reasoning. Objects are in existence regardless of someone's observations of that object. In contrast to realism,subjective idealism argues that only minds exist because everything depends on the mind (the subjective perceiver).
https://study.com/academy/lesson/platonic-idealism-plato-and-his-influence.html
Platonic realism is the philosophical position that there are abstract objects, such as numbers, ideas, and mathematical objects, that exist independently of the physical world.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-platonic-idealism-and-platonic-realism -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
FWIW, I think of Mathematics, and "mathematical relations" as mental abstractions from observation of the arrangment and dynamics of the world. For me, Math is the logical (immaterial) structure of reality. Mental Relations do exist apart from Material Objects, in the sense that Ideas are categorically distinct from the things they portray.Well, you will have an issue accounting for the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences' (Eugene Wigner). — Wayfarer
Not really. There are mathematical relations between the things that exist. These relations don't exist independently of the things that exhibit them. Simple example: two-ness is a property that groups of 2 have, but groups of 3 of 4 lack. This fact doesn't depend on "2" existing in a 3rd realm. — Relativist
For example, a structural engineer is able to "see" (imagine) the invisible logical relations, and to convert them into a freebody diagram, where the arrows represent invisible forces, and the lines represent not-yet-real material beams capable of supporting those forces. It's a diagram of "things that exist" ideally, but the relationships diagrammed (represented) are mental noumena, which exist only in a conscious rational mind. In the real world you don't see those imaginary lines & arrows, because relations are metaphysical, not physical. Representations are not real, they are Ideal. Do you "see" what I mean? :smile:
Is the Mathematical World Real?
Philosophers cannot agree on whether mathematical objects exist or are pure fictions
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-mathematical-world-real/
A mental representation can be caused by something it does not represent, and can represent something that has not caused it,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/
-
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
As an Architect, my occupation involves interpreting the client's ideas & dreams into a mathematical & graphic design language that can be erected into material structures, which not only ward-off environmental dangers (tornadoes, earthquakes), but provide sentimental satisfaction of those expressed needs & desires. So, you can see why I might be more open to immaterial concepts than a manual laborer. :smile:In my case, my occupation deals with a lot of material objects such as moving a mass from point A to point B, machine operation, operating in dangerous environments, bad weather, physical environments that are not controlled,...that sort of thing. Since my personal approach to consciousness and the material environment affects my safety I might naturally have a more materialist view than someone coming from a historical or academic view. — Mark Nyquist
Note --- As I have frequently clarified : for practical matters, I am a materialist, dealing with things. But for theoretical topics, I am a philosopher, dealing with ideas. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes. What you are labeling "reification", I would call an Abstract Noun. I assume that the referent of the term Consciousness is not an observable material object, but a rational inference. It does not point to a physical thing, but to a holistic behavior that we call Thinking & Reasoning. The word is an Abstract Noun, "denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object". Would you classify Consciousness as "immaterial"? Is the denotation "figurative" or "literal"? You tell me. :smile:↪Gnomon
You're close. I used "reification" to refer to the treatment of an abstraction as a thing, where thing is something that exists (i.e. it is ontic; part of the ontological furniture of the world).
I don't think abstractions are ontic. I reject platonism, which treats ideal forms as ontic. It's still fine to talk about them figuratively as things, but it's unclear to me if you're talking figuratively or literally. Please clarify, because this thread is about the "hard problem" -which is only a problem for materialism. If your solution is to assume the existence of the immaterial, please state this. — Relativist -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I do take exemption from the empirical requirements of scientific rigor, when I'm discussing a topic that has no objective empirical evidence. I would like to assume that the different methodologies*1 would go without saying on The Philosophy Forum ; but Materialism/Physicalism seems to be the default metaphysics for many posters.You beg off from the arduous path of scientific rigor by drawing a hard boundary around your philosophical postulations, and yet all of them seem to be funded by the theories and experimental verifications of materialistic science. If your philosophy were authentically divested from rational materialism, I think it would be almost barren. Given this situation, it's clear to me you'd benefit greatly by investing more time in study of science with rigor, whether reductive or not. — ucarr
If the topic of this thread was Neurology, I would indeed feel the need to justify my arguments with empirical data. However, the kernel of my thesis was a scientist's interpretation of quirky Quantum Physics, and computerized Information science : "it from bit" : material things are derived from immaterial information*2. So, yes, my thesis is fundamentally "funded" by Science, yet not the "materialistic" type, but the theoretical philosophical type. That's because Consciousness is subjective, not objective*3.
The Enformationism thesis is not entirely "divested" from materialism, anymore than Quantum Physics is completely separate from Macro Physics. But quantum-scale matter is more mathematical (wave function) than material (particle). And the "evidence" for quantum behavior is much more open to philosophical interpretation than for full-scale chemistry. So, the math adds some "rigor" to the science of invisible & intangible "things"*5. But, a century later, quantum physics remains more philosophical than empirical. And some physicists interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation to imply that Consciousness might be related to quantum phenomena.
If you are really interested in the Science underlying the Enformationism thesis, invest some time in reviewing the website and the blogs. But remember that the thesis is not scientific, and I am not a scientist. Also, the professional scientists I quote, feel free to depart from the rigors of materialistic science, when they are extrapolating from hard evidence to philosophical speculation. Besides Wheeler*3, I follow several other physicists*4 who venture off the reservation in search of philosophical understanding of subjective concepts, such as Consciousness. :smile:
*1. The Difference Between Philosophy and Science :
The difference lies in the method of explanation. While philosophy uses philosophical arguments and philosophical principles, science makes use of empirical data and objective evidence. Science uses empirical data to validate its theories. It takes the answers of experiment and proves them to be right or wrong.
https://www.ponderingphilosopher.com/the-difference-between-philosophy-and-science/
*2. John Archibald Wheeler's "It from Bit" theory is a philosophical idea that suggests that all physical reality, including spacetime itself, is ultimately derived from information. According to this concept, fundamental reality is not composed of particles or fields, but rather information. In this theory, Wheeler suggests that information is primary, and the material world emerges from the interactions and processing of information.
https://www.quora.com/According-to-John-Wheelers-it-from-bit-theory-can-information-exist-outside-of-spacetime-Can-information-cause-something-without-completely-no-energy-in-it-from-bit-theory
Note --- Information processing is energetic in the sense of causing physical transformations.
*3. Information Theory and Consciousness :
Consciousness is a subjectively experienced phenomenon that cannot be doubted, as Descartes famously observed.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2021.641239/full#h2
Note --- The Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complexity is a scientific endeavor, but its subject-non-matter, Complexity, is not a material object ; it is instead a generalized concept referring to the holistic interrelationships of many things. Randomness and Non-linearity tend to water-down the rigor of a science studying res cogitans.
"Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, leading to non-linearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence". ___Wikipedia
*4. Physicist Paul Davies :
Paul Davies begins with the claim that our ability to understand nature through the scientific method is a fact which demands an explanation. He proposes that our mind and the cosmos are linked, that consciousness “is a fundamental and integral part of the outworking of the laws of nature.” . . . . Still the ultimate explanation of the origin of the laws lies outside the scope of science and should be pursued by metaphysics and theology.”
https://counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/davie1-body.html
*5. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE FOR SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES
not a photograph, but an artist's interpretation of paths followed by unseen particles
Note --- the path provides mathematical information for a conscious observer to interpret -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes. Apparently is reading Reification into what I call Ideality (the state or quality of being ideal). Ironically the "res" in res cogitans is usually translated as "thing". Although non-specific, "thing" seems to imply physical object or sensory phenomenon. So I struggle to find language that doesn't sound like Reification. How do you deal with the problem of communicating immaterial-but-non-spiritual philosophical concepts in a materialist language? :smile:Reification means ‘to treat as a thing’. It is from the root ‘re-‘ (from which ‘reality’ is also derived), and which Descartes employed in his ‘res cogitans’, and by virtue of which he has been accused of reifying mind (justly, in my view). But as per my question above, I say that one may regard numbers and logical conventions as real without reifying them as things. — Wayfarer -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
For the record, I'm not claiming that mental activity is a real thing (ontic), but an ideal concept (noumena). Brain processes are real & physical, but mental activities are ideal & metaphysical. Science deals with Reality and Objects, but Philosophy deals with Ideality and Subjects. The ontological being of Mind is essential, not material. You can't examine Intellect under a microscope, but you can study Reason with reasoning.If you're claiming mental activity entails the existence of immaterial objects I'd regard that as a reification- treating an abstraction as something ontic. — Relativist
However, if you don't pay close attention, the materialistic presumptions of our common language may give you the impression that metaphysical noumena are physical phenonomena. :smile:
Aristotle describes Mind (nous, often also rendered as “intellect” or “reason”) as “the part of the soul by which it knows and understands” -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes, both "Both" and "And" are conjunctions, so the redundancy is intentional for emphasis. But BothAnd joins the two into a single holistic concept, which is in opposition to the common Either/Or presumptions of Reductionism. :smile:Therefore, regarding the Both/And Principle, my first thought is that this is a redundancy. — ucarr
PS___ I appreciate your constructive skepticism. Too much criticism on this forum is couched in destructive cynicism.
No, I don't think that the brain-function we call "Mind", or the body-function "Life", exist outside space-time. Both are simply concepts that exist in the unreal realm of Ideas. You can't put them under a microscope, but you can analyze them philosophically. Also, I don't deny that both of those immaterial functions evolved from material predecessors. They are references to "absences"*1 in Terrence Deacon's notion of "aboutness". And, like most philosophical speculations, they can't be understood from a space-time Materialist/Physicalist perspective.I join Relativist in posing this question to you. Also, I will attempt to reenforce his supposition about mind being matter-based by claiming that any phenomenon with time duration is physical because spacetime is a physical medium. Thoughts, possessing time duration, are therefore physical. — ucarr
I define "Mind & Life" in meta-physical*2 terms for two reasons : a> to distinguish my Information-based holistic worldview from matter-based Materialism and reductive Science. And b> to force us to trace the evolution of Matter & Mind back to the beginning of the space-time world, which (per BB theory) suddenly appeared from no-where & no-thing & no-time. A century after the Big Bang hypothesis, cosmologists still debate what existed "before" the physical bang. My proposal is metaphysical Causation (EnFormAction ; primordial Energy ; creative Power) and Entention*3 (goal-directed program for evolution)*4. All current cosmologies presume that Energy (cause) & Law (order) pre-existed the Bang.
In my information-based thesis, the source of our Reality was something like Plato's timeless Ideality, consisting of Infinite Potential (FORM) which is not-yet-real and not-yet-existing. What you call "mind being matter-based" is a banal truism. What I call "Mind" (capital M) is a philosophical postulation, based on physicist Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture. Both posits go beyond the space-time boundaries of Science, into the unbounded possibilities of Philosophical speculation. Enformationism is a modern update of ancient Panpsychism, similar to Radical Empiricism & Neutral Monism. They build-upon, but go beyond, the facts of physical Science. :nerd:
*1. Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
Constitutive absence :A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
*2. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
*3. Entention : Deacon Incomplete Nature
Special spelling of "intention" : purpose ; direction
Aboutness : aiming toward some external or future state
*4. Do you think evolution from chaotic plasma to intelligent ucarr happened by accident? Accidents are destructive of order. Design is constructive of organization. Do you think Evolution could work like a computer program, to compute something unknown (the missing answer) from something known (the initial state)? Design and Entention are no-nos for empirical Science, but not for theoretical Philosophy. What we are talking about on this thread is not rocket science, but the Intelligence that leads toward rockets to Mars.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The "parallels" are philosophical analogies, and have no basis in materialistic Science. Do you consider yourself to be a devout Materialist? If so, why are you posting on a free-thinking Philosophy Forum? :cool:I don't agree, however, that the concrete/abstract debate parallels the mind/body debate. The former is non-controversial, the latter anything but. — ucarr -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I don't know where you got "reification", but I refer to the Mind as the Function of the Brain. Both are aspects of heterogeneous (diverse) Reality, but only the brain is a material object. Mind is an abstract immaterial process, closer to Energy than Matter. I make that distinction because Mind is not an empirical thing to be analyzed by Science, but an immaterial activity to be studied holistically by Philosophy . . . or by Psychology, which is mostly philosophical. :smile:This is why I refer to "mental activities" rather then "the mind". We should be able to agree that mental activities occur. Mental activities are...activities, like running (actions are not "entities"), so I disagree with imposing an inherent reification. — Relativist
Why psychology isn’t science
Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html
In physics, energy is an abstract, non-material quantity associated with the state of a system.
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/PERC02_Loverude.pdf -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
My thesis of EnFormAction does exist "within the material world", because the observer lives in the world of tangible material objects and invisible physical forces. But I think your interpretation of the thesis is influenced by the materialistic nature of the English language*1. That's why our dialogs on the Philosophy Forum are so often fraught with harsh put-downs, when we fail to communicate on both levels. Some posters attempt to express philosophical concepts in concrete scientific language, while others use more abstract expressions when discussing topics like "Consciousness". That inherent ambiguity limits our ability to communicate, unless we understand that both Concretions and Abstractions exist side-by-side in the Real/Ideal world.To me this sounds like a description of stored energy and, therefore, I say in response: Where there's energy there's material and thus your attempt to occupy ambiguous position between material/immaterial is false. Your Enformaction, like Deacon's constitutive absence, stands squarely within the material world. — ucarr
Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that our objective world is Matter-based, and that our subjective realm is Mind-based. So, I can agree with you, that the technical term EnFormAction is a brain-state in the material world. But it is also a concept in & about the ideal realm of Mind. :smile:
*1. Language is too material!
language is infused with materiality and should not therefore be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-017-9540-0
*2. The BothAnd Principle :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Today, while perusing Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, I came across a philosophical term that I hadn't noticed in previous readings : Neutral Monism*3. Serendipitously, it happens to be pertinent to both this Consciousness thread, and to the BothAnd concept. It assumes that both Mind & Matter emerge from a single more fundamental root or cause. Both Particulars (material objects) and Relations (ideas about associations between things) exist in our Material/Immaterial world. So, William James coined the term Radical Empiricism*4 to include both empirical Things and theoretical Ideas under the purview of Philosophy.
In 500BC, Plato called that original Source or Essence : Form & First Cause. In the 17th century, Spinoza called that Single Substance deus sive natura. But in the 21st century, my thesis calls it EnFormAction, a contraction of Energy (causation) & Information (organization). EFA is neither Matter nor Mind, but it creates both of those sub-forms as distinctive aspects of the Real world. Moreover, the philosophical perspective of Radical Empiricism seems to be a BothAnd acknowledgement of the apparent Duality of reality, even as it postulates a Monistic origin of all things & ideas in our diverse multiform world. :nerd:
*3. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
Neutral monism has gained prominence as a potential solution to theoretical issues within the philosophy of mind, specifically the mind–body problem and the hard problem of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
*4. Radical Empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism
The point of my thesis is to provide a conjunction (BothAnd) that weaves together the disjunctions of Science and Philosophy. For example, Physics is empirical, but Math is theoretical; yet both exist in the same world as different forms of the same universal substance. So, I can agree that those who "align with either", to the exclusion of the other, is playing the fool. Watch your step! :joke:The disjunction: science or philosophy, with respect to consciousness studies, runs parallel to the disjunction: physics or math, with respect to Relativity. Anyone operating within either of these two disciplines who aligns with either of these disjunctions assumes position to play the part of the fool. — ucarr
-
The Great Controversy
I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.:gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that? — Athena
Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh:
Gnomon
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum