I find his dissatisfaction with infinite regression unsatisfactory for if infinite causes are the chain of sequences ad infinitum does such a chain not imply a closed loop, like that primordial snake ouroboros eating it’s own tail. — invicta

No. A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself. Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. A true infinite loop would have no head or tail. :smile:

The most I have "accused" (your word) you of is not being able to either follow or present a clear argument.

Despite the faux footnotes. — Banno

Speaking of "faux footnotes", can you "present a clear argument" to show why any of my footnotes is "faux". That would be instructive, and help me to communicate in your language. :smile:

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? — Gnomon
Why not.
But my point was missed, so I'll put it again, more directly. There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another. Such folk might miss the distinction ↪Tom Storm makes. — Banno

"There are those" seems to be covertly pointing at yours truly. Likewise, the poster-who-shall-not-be-named falsely accuses Gnomon of substituting New Ageism for Scientism. But he's dead wrong, and so are you, if you interpret a> my defense of metaphysical Philosophy*1, as a rejection of physical Science, and b> my references to Holism as a sign of New Age beliefs. Holism*2 is actually a modern scientific concept that was adopted by New Agers, and by Quantum Physics pioneers.

In some circles --- believers in the inerrancy of Empirical Science --- Gnomon has gained a rep for Science -bashing. They equate my criticism of their alt-religion belief system as directed toward the insitiution of Science itself. That's like a Catholic, who interprets any Protestant pope-criticism as God-bashing. The problem is not with the scientific evidences, but with mis-placed faith in the ancient philosophy of Materialism*3.

For the record, Gnomon is not bashing Empirical Science in this thread. And is not advocating for replacing one fundamentalism with another. That is the exact opposite of my intention. Instead, I was accusing Scientism of claiming to have a source of authoritative Truth in "settled science"*3.

*1. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*2. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

*3. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/


FWIW, 's "distinction" mis-interpreted the intent of my assertion. I actually agree with his appraisal of Scientism*4. But the "source" I was referring to is an official biblical compendium of "settled science". One poster in particular has made repeated references to "settled science" as-if it was a real thing*5.

*4. For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority [settled science] on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
"I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism." ___Tom Storm

*5. "I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction." — Tom Storm
Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. Science is supposed to be a Fact system, not a Faith system. Science is always tentative, and seldom settled. Hence not an authoritative Bible for Materialists to thump.


The OP seems to be asking if Secular Science has the "right stuff" to replace religion*6. Then noted that due to the "-ism" (belief system) in the name, Scientism might be construed as a religious belief system*7. But he clarified that Science (without the -ism) does not have the metaphysical (values ; ethics) credentials to qualify as a religion. He seemed to be defending non-ism- Science from being confused with Scientism as a pseudo-religious belief system. I do think the belief system of Scientism is a corruption of the original ideals of Empirical Science --- to let the "book" of Nature be the final authority.

I agreed with Tim's distinction. Then I made a few remarks about Final Authority in religion, which Scientism claims to have in "Settled Science". I noted that neither Scientism nor non-ism-Science has the kind of biblical or papal authority characteristic of Christianity. That was intended to be a positive aspect of Empirical Science, avoiding inclinations to fundamentalist Faith. But some, such as Tom apparently construed that assertion as denigration of Empirical Science. Hence, we got off on a side-track, that some interpreted as Empirical Science bashing.

*6. "It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory." ___
Note -- Would empirical Science be able to objectify morality, as in Utilitarianism?

*7. Scientism :
"there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology". ___

there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this. — Tom Storm

You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". Nor should there be. So how could you challenge me to demonstrate the existence of what I just denied? :smile:

Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism. — Tom Storm

I agree that your "single source" is stipulated in the definition of Scientism. But "Science" is not an actual thing, not a centralized institution, or a book of wisdom. Instead, it's an ideal that scientists are supposed to aspire to. Likewise "settled science" assumes a unified consensus. Yet consensus in science remains an unattainable state of perfect agreement among independent thinkers. There is no central authority to settle all disagreements.

For centuries the Classical Mechanics of Newton was as close to a scientific Bible as we've ever had. But the advent of non-mechanical Quantum Mechanics turned a lot of that "settled science" upside down. Consequently, scientists argued among themselves about how to interpret their empirical findings. And even Einstein couldn't depend on his aura of authority to overrule the Copenhagen Consensus.

So, my comment was not belittling the ideals of Empirical Truth in Science, but merely referring to the absence of an actual central authority for Truth : an Imperial Church, or absolute Pope, or authorized Bible. Do you agree that there is nothing in Science or Scientism corresponding to those centralized Authorities? The bottom line here is that if Science had a Bible or Central Authority -- to whom all must bow -- it would soon become a fossilized belief system : a religion. :smile:


Authority in Science :
The demotion of authority in science has many roots:
The fact that results are not taken seriously until they have been replicated in independent experiments by people one may assume will not collude in covering up sloppy or fraudulent results.
The vital connection between theory and results. Shaping theories generalizes specific results and allows experiments using different methods to test the same claim, liberates the outcome from the biases of any individual, and ultimately creates a basis for distinct scientific fields (biology and chemistry are different fields not because of different names but because of different theories).
Statistical and mathematical analyses that are verifiable in their own right and that estimate the probability that a result arose by chance.
The innate skepticism and high standards of the scientists who read the result, e.g. the default assumption that an idea is false until and unless there is evidence to support it.
https://arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/authority_in_science.html

A crisis of authority in scientific discourse :
Scientific discourse has typically been considered what philosopher of language Mikhail Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson (1981, p. 343) termed an “authoritative discourse,”—a discourse that “binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally,” whose hegemony is traditionally a priori, unquestioned. However, within the public realm, that authority is in crisis.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-020-09989-1

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

For Materialists, the term "Universe" is the ultimate reality. But philosophers have long postulated that there may be more than meets the eye. And we "see" that More in imagination. In some contexts, I call it "Ideality" as a parallel to "Reality". Since that unreal something More cannot be empirically proven to exist, I suspect that some philosophers created the Ontological term Monism (one substance) to represent both the physical substance of Universe, and the metaphysical substance*1 of The Whole --- including whatever gods may be, and abstract/ideal principles, such as Logos.

So, "why posit monism"? Probably because Monism is a philosophical ideal : unattainable perfection, by contrast with the complexities & contradictions of Pluralistic Dualism. Reductively, if you trace the evolution of everything real & knowable (the Universe : single circle : all encompassing) back in spacetime, you eventually arrive a singular point, at which Time & Space disappear into the immeasurable : Infinity. And that innumerable number has always seemed both scary & significant for philosophers, along with the all-encompassing notion of Unity : the bookends of reasoning : the Beginning and the End. E Pluribus Unum. Why stop short of perfection; even if it's only an Ideal?

Even before modern science began to put numbers on everything --- including invisible intangible things --- mathematical thinkers could imagine that all number series must begin with the concept of Infinite Possibility subsumed in Monism. Mundane Plurality is the beginning point for physical Science, which aspires to reduce complex things down to an essential Atom : the essence of Form. But Quantum Physics has discovered that it may be impossible to touch the bottom of an Infinite regression. So, the scientists eventually gave up on Atomism, and posited a singular universal virtual Energy Field of all physical possibilities. Yet, they still resist defeat of their doctrine of infinite Reductionism in the non-reductive concept of Monism/Holism/Infinity. That would be admission of a physical limit to human Reason. Which would require resort to the metaphysical Imagination of Philosophical postulation.

All encompassing Unity (real + ideal) is the ultimate goal for meta-physical {e.g.. the realm of ideas ; the Ideosphere ; the Dataome} Philosophy, which seeks to understand physical Reality by discovering what all things have in common : their Ultimate Pre-physical Source : The One. Ironically, both reasoning methods can only work with that which lies in between the imaginary brackets of First & Last : All = Alpha & Omega = Unity = The One = the Ultimate Category for both Reductionists and Holists. For all practical purposes, Infinity = Emptiness = Ultimate Ground : the limit of human Reason & Existence. Ooops! Is all that included in Monism? Metaphysical Ontology can get out of hand. And this stuff is over my head. :smile:



*1. Infinity and Unity : Mathematics and Metaphysics :
According to Leibniz, any living being admits of both infinite complexity and strict unity. The author develops an analogy between numerical and metaphysical unity: while substantial unities are presupposed by aggregates, a substantial unity is also presupposed by a substance’s infinite qualities, or by its sequence of states and perceptions. This point is exemplified and developed through Leibniz’s use of a law of a series to define an individual substance. The author seeks to show that Leibniz’s qualification of a substance as “one being” is primarily intended to emphasize the essential unity and indivisibility of a substance. This claim can also be expressed by noting that unity per se (or an indivisible unity) implies numerical oneness but not vice versa.
https://academic.oup.com/book/34904/chapter-abstract/298474842?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction. — Tom Storm

Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. :smile:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.
Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry. — Tom Storm

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. As you implied, Science, as a dynamic body of knowledge, is not static, but constantly evolving. That's why classical Newtonian Mechanics is no longer The Ultimate Authority on Physics. As soon as a fact reaches consensus, a new fact emerges to cast doubt on it. Ironically, even the Bible of Abrahamic traditions has evolved, both in fact and philosophy over the ages. That's why complex re-interpretations are necessary to harmonize the discordant notes.

Adherents of Scientism on this forum make very confident assertions about how the world works, despite the commonly accepted opinion that, although Quantum Math is more accurate than Newtonian Math, it is ultimately grounded in Randomness & Uncertainty. So an open & flexible mind is necessary for navigating the "pathways to truth". Einstein seemed to have such an adaptive mind, so if he was around today, I think he would grudging admit that "god does play dice with the universe", but he still wouldn't like it. :smile:



Has Newtonian physics been disproven? :
It was published in 1687 in the book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica written by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's “Law of Gravity” has been declared wrong; however, scientists prefer to continue with Einstein's theory of “General Relativity” still showing suspicion in his theory too.
https://happenings.lpu.in/newtons-law-of-gravity-proven-wrong/

Classical vs Quantum Physics :
Newton's laws are used to explain our daily life while at the atomic level, they fail to explain the motion and nature of atoms and that is where quantum mechanics come in.
https://sherpa-online.com/forum/thread/physics/gcse/newtons-laws/were-newtons-laws-superseded-by-quantum-mechanics

Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics?
Closer examination, though, reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or its indeterminism, although he did think—for solid scientific reasons—that the randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-really-thought-about-quantum-mechanics/

This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.
In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking? — Banno

Yes. In retrospect, the irony of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, is that it rejected the authority of Church & Pope, but accepted the authority of a book compiled & edited by that same organization. Indeed "how odd". For the record, Gnomon does not place credence in the "holy" book of both creeds.

Regarding the necessity for a "priestly caste", I'll simply refer you to a fundamental concept of Protestantism : the priesthood of all believers*1. If you don't come from a Fundamentalist background, a lot of these doctrinal paradoxes will seem "odd".

I assume the "who was it?" question was rhetorical, so I won't go into a history lesson. But if you interpret my comments, on this thread and others, as "fundamentalist buttressing", you have completely missed the point . . . nay, reversed it. Perhaps you are confusing Gnomon with someone else.

If the "Catholic Bible" comment was "ambiguous", that may be because I was making an analogy to a science-based, instead of bible-based, alt-religion*2. The Fundamentalists, and indeed most Protestants, accepted the "faith only" Pauline version*3 of Christianity, while officially rejecting the "idol (icon) worship" and "salvific works" that emerged within the Imperial Church of Rome. To be clear, the "who?" is Christian Fundamentalists on one hand, and Atheist adherents of Scientism on the other. Both seeking higher authority for their favorite beliefs.

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? I don't stand on either side. :smile:


*1. Priesthood of all believers :
The doctrine asserts that all humans have access to God through Christ, the true high priest, and thus do not need a priestly mediator. This introduced a democratic element in the functioning of the church that meant all Christians were equal.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/priesthood-of-all-believers

*2. Modern Alternative to Religion :
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. ___Gnomon, from this thread

*3. Not by faith only :
James 2:24 : You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Note -- A direct contradiction of Paul's doctrine. Just one of many discrepancies in the "Catholic" Bible.

For sure. Scientism is definitely a thing. Now, there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology. But I think there is also a good argument to be made that this is a No True Scottman fallacy given some of the world's most famous scientists write best sellers in the science category that are substantially or even mostly about ontology, the origins and nature of the world, or make explicit claims about morality and moral realism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, Scientism seems to be a vague-but-firm belief system based on modern "real-world" revelations instead of ancient ideal-world myths (handed-down from primitive priests). On this forum, true-believers in Scientism act just like religious faithful when their core beliefs are challenged. For example, instead of philosophical arguments, they may give you book, chapter & verse of a technical tome to serve as the authority for a specific belief, or they may just tell you to read some abstruse text by a presumed expert (secular priest), leaving you educate yourself in The Truth, and out of the vale of willful Ignorance. Does that sound like a bible-thumper to you?

In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. So, those of us not specially-trained must accept, on faith, the "facts" of those arcane experts. Yet, there is no profane pope to serve as the judge of last resort for contentious questions*1. So Scientism faithful are left to their own devices to determine Ethical & Ontological answers to philosophical questions, that are irrelevant to physical & mechanical Science. Maybe that's why they post on a Philosophy Forum instead of Science Site.

Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. Hence, their doctrine is simply classical Newtonian mechanics,with Random Chance in place of Newton's clockwork designer. If that works for ya, you may not need philosophical reasoning to fill-in the blanks of scientific & religious faith. The rest of us must keep an open mind, while searching for the elusive butterfly of truth. :smile:


*1. And their hypothetical Bible is referred to as "Settled Science". Is there any such thing as a final fact in science?

Apparently, they are working on a movie based on Hail Mary. — Gnomon
I liked the book, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it as a movie. We'll see. — T Clark

I also would not imagine Hail Mary as a movie, if I hadn't seen The Martian. It's not exactly a typical action-adventure story, since most of the action takes place in the mind of the protagonist. That's why I said that a really good actor & director would be necessary to pull it off. Lots of voice-overs could become tedious for a bang-boom audience.

Side note : I was impressed with Weir's unconventional but realistic alien concept. By imagining Rocky's home planet as a Venus-like world with thick light-blocking atmosphere, the author gave his species a handicap to overcome in developing intelligence & science. The lack of quick-acting vision, and reliance on slower sonar, would tend to limit the alien's inter-action with local Nature, making scientific observations more difficult. Speaking of coincidences, in my current E-book, I just today came across the Sagan quote below, which could indicate why the alien's Science was inferior in some ways to the human's. :nerd:

"Also fortuitous is the transparency of our atmosphere to visible light, which made important scientific advances possible, as Carl Sagan underscored in his 1980 book Cosmos. There he asked us to imagine intelligent life evolving on a cloud-covered planet such as Venus. “Would it then invent science?” he asked."
The Miracle of Man, by Michael Denton
details the complex web of coincidences that allowed the evolution of Life & Mind in a universe otherwise hostile to living & thinking organisms.

It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.

Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory. — Art48

Science-based explanations might gradually become simple & common enough to replace ancient bed-time stories, of how the world works, for the average Joe. But, as you implied, the material success of Science has been largely due to its focus on "how" facts, instead of "why" questions. Those perpetual philosophical issues are perspectival & interpretational, hence resistant to impersonal pragmatic nailed-down fixed facts.

Fortunately, some of us can make room in the same mind for both Hard Facts and Flexible Feelings. Perhaps though, as humans evolve into trans-human cyborgs, those animal emotions may gradually come under the rule of mathematical Logic*1. The ethical implications & evaluations of such an evolutionary leap have been explored in both academic philosophical tomes, and in popular entertainment forms. For example, uber-logical Mr. Spock & Commander Data, still seem to benefit from association with their more emotional & humane Captains. As long as world events are complex enough to hide their mathematical foundation, some problems may be better addressed with get-er-done motivation than with abstract structural analysis.

Since the un-amicable divorce of Pragmatic Science from Aspirational Religion, both seem to be gradually moving toward a fragile reconciliation. What form that accommodation will take remains to be seen, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. :smile:


*1. A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE :
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. ___David Hume

I enjoyed it. — T Clark

Apparently, they are working on a movie based on Hail Mary. Unfortunately, there's a horror flick with the same name coming out in 2023. So, there may be some low-brow competition, to confuse those with higher standards for intellectual entertainment. On the other hand, Weir's story should be relatively cheap to produce : a single major star, routine graphic effects, and most of the action takes place in the mind, putting emphasis on actor & director instead of wardrobe & make-up artists. I enjoyed The Martian, in part because it was contrary to the typical money-making recipe of appealing to the lowest common denominator, to get pubescent butts in seats. :smile:

Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir

It's a science-fiction novel, not a philosophy tome. But, it does involve some deep ethical problems, such as a decision to nuke Antarctica, or not, in order to buy a little more time for the rest of the Earth. Ironically, for sci-fi, it's not a typical adolescent male fantasy with bug-eyed monsters, muscular heroes & curvy females. Even though the alien is strange-looking, his appearance is appropriate for his home environment. And he acts like an intelligent being, not a scary outlandish creature.

As in Weir's previous novel & movie, The Martian, it's mostly about a man alone, and he deals with a series of life-or-death challenges, not with laser blasters & light sabers, but with Science & Technology. So, the book will appeal mostly to those with a good general understanding of basic science : physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Again, ironically, the protagonist is a junior high school science teacher, with no heroic qualifications except intellect & imagination.

As the title implies, the whole story is about a cosmic act of desperation. So there's plenty of tension and feats of courage & intelligence. Oh yes, there is an alien, but no eyes at all. He sees with sound, because his home world has a thick atmosphere, impenetrable to light, but not to sub-luminal vibrations. The book is not at all fantastical, but it's as realistic as anyone could imagine, for a world faced with a potential global extinction event. Never give up hope : science will find a way. :smile:

Bit confused here. Negative entropy is what life does. From What I understand Positive negentropy is "moreness" of negentropy. Negative negentropy (double negative) is entropy (disorder).
So for me your "what physicists refer to the opposite of negative entropy as positive negentropy" are one and the same. — Benj96

Yes. both physical Negentropy and philosophical Enformy are characteristic of living organisms. And Entropy is characteristic of dying systems. But when Shannon adopted the physics term into his Information (communication of meaning) theory, it had a different context and meaning from Thermodynamic Entropy*1. Likewise, "Negentropy"*2, although superficially similar, applies to a different context. Ironically, the negation of a negative concept may sound like a non-positive concept.

So, no. Negentropy is not "one and the same" as Enformy*3*4, but the confusion is understandable. Which was the point I was trying to make in a short post. I go into much more detail in the thesis and blog. Thermodynamic Negentropy is not the negation of a negation in a mathematical sense. :smile:


*1. Entropy :
According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy fundamentally damages isolated systems, so it is possible to distinguish between open organizations and closed organizations (isolated system). Isolated systems tend toward disorder, that is, things tend toward chaos over time.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8625646/

*2. Negentropy :
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. The concept and phrase "negative entropy" was introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 popular-science book What is Life? Later, Léon Brillouin shortened the phrase to negentropy. ___Wikipedia

Thus Schrödinger arrived at his famous remark, “What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help produce while alive.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005272899000651
Note -- Entropy is a tendency toward dis-organization. The 'negative" is superfluous. Enformy is a trend toward organization. Not a physical thing or object, but an evolutionary direction. A trend is knowable information. The positive or negative connotation is in the mind of the observer.

*3. Entropy and Information :
Several posts and my classes in thermodynamics equate increase in entropy with loss of information. Shannon clearly showed that the information content of a message is zero when its entropy is zero and that its information content increases with increasing entropy. So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order. Why does physics continue to get the relationship between entropy and information backwards?[

"So entropy increase leads to more information, which is consistent with the evolution of the universe from a disordered plasma to one that contains lots of order". No, information is conserved, and so does not increase. Entropy is increasing and this means that the evolution goes from ordered universe towards disordered universe, so exactly the contrary of what you are saying. Entropy is equivalent to disorder, or uniform information. The total information is conserved, but the uniform information is increasing.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75146/entropy-and-information
Note -- In the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information (EnFormAction) is similar to Energy, in that it can be both constructive (organization) and destructive (disorganization). So total Information is conserved, while order increased and decreases. Likewise Enformy, not Energy per se, is merely am overall positive trend toward order in the universe. That the same thing can be both positive and negative can be confusing, when used in the wrong context.

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

When I ask whether consciousness is fundamental or not, I start from a very simplistic logical model. — Eugen

A philosophical "starting point" would be to define "Consciousness". I generally agree with your reasoning, except I understand that Human Consciousness probably evolved from something even more Fundamental, such as Generic Information : the power to enform ; to create. :smile:

Anyway, the jist of my OP was that images are fundamental to philosophy, and on reflection, not so much a criticism of this forum. — Mark Nyquist

Yes. What famous philosopher said "a picture is worth a thousand words"? OOOps! The quote below says it was an advertising executive, presumably with pecuniary motives instead of philosophical wisdom. Nevertheless, philosophical tomes tend to be abstract & verbose. So it's easy to get lost in the labyrinth of metaphysics. But a picture works like a poetic metaphor to compress idealized generalizations into concrete specifications : an instance. FWIW, I save meaningful images to a personal webpage, for use later in blogs & posts. :smile:


A graphic illustration conveys a stronger message than words, as in The book jacket is a big selling point—one picture is worth a thousand words. This saying was invented by an advertising executive, Fred R. Barnard. To promote his agency's ads he took out an ad in Printer's Ink in 1921 with the headline “One Look Is Worth a Thousand Words” and attributed it to an ancient Japanese philosopher. Six years later he changed it to “Chinese Proverb: One Picture Is Worth Ten Thousand Words,” illustrated with some Chinese characters. The attribution in both was invented; Barnard simply believed an Asian origin would give it more credibility.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words--one

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT? . . . .
A PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS . . . .
WANT TO KNOW A SECRET? . . . . . .

Is there anything that can be done about the limited ability to post photographs/images on this Philosophy Forum? — Mark Nyquist

One way to upload images to TPF is to do a Google search for your topic. Select the "images" sub-tab, then find an appropriate image and click it. The selected image will then appear in the upper right hand corner. Right click on it, and select from the menu : "copy image link". With the link now stored in your clipboard memory, go to your post and click on the rectangle & mountain symbol on the menu bar to open the Image dialog. Paste the image link in the box, and click "Go". The image will then be added to your post where the cursor is located. There are other methods, but they may require a little more work. :smile:


IMAGE INPUT SYMBOL

But my eyes are closed and I am receiving no input from the external world. The number one candidate at the moment for where the dream is occurring is entirely in the brain. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. Dreams seem to be re-constituted memories. But, they sometimes seem to portray someone else's experience. However, that's probably due to lack of context, or to altered perspective. When awake, with eyes open, the context of incoming imagery is obvious. But when asleep, the brain is free to improvise, and to alter the original context. For example, I used to dream of an extremely wide residential street that may have impressed me as a small child. But that dream image was used, years later, in different contexts, perhaps to express some childish feeling of awe that, as an adult, I can't explain in words.

Some have interpreted the weirdness of dreams as a sign of an external source. Perhaps a communication from God to warn you of danger or opportunity. But most of us just accept the bizarre nature of dreams as an indication that they do not portray reality, but possibility. In the realm of infinite unfettered possibility, almost anything is possible. When asleep, the brain is literally "unfettered" by top-down conscious control : it's a Free Agent.

One theory to explain the warning or tutorial message of dreams says that the brain continues to work sub-consciously on today's complex challenges, at night when it's not occupied by conscious inputs*1. In that case, it's not God or dead relatives trying to help you, but your computer-like brain continuing to process information in the "background" when you are not aware & interfering with its work.

After centuries of philosophical & scientific & mystical speculation on the meaning of dreams, the jury is still out. So, you can make of it whatever makes sense to you. But, as you said, the general consensus today, is that the imagery of dreams is "entirely in the brain", and not signals from the outer world, or spirit realm. So, the apparent "phenomenal" content of dreams is actually a noumenal*2 reconstitution of waking experience. Does that make sense to you? :smile:



*1. The problem-solving theory is a cognitive theory of dreaming that states the function of dreams is to help people solve their ongoing problems.
https://www.picmonic.com/pathways/college/courses/standard/humanities-social-studies-8836/dream-theory-2444/cognitive-theories-of-dreaming_1795

*2. Noumenal : not real, but ideal
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon

Talk of ‘what brains do’ was called ‘the mereological fallacy’ in a well-known book on neuroscience and philosophy. The mereological fallacy is to ascribe to parts of the body what only agents or actors are capable of doing. ‘The brain’ becomes a kind of explanatory unit, an idealised black box which ‘does’ this or ‘produces’ that and so on. But ascribing thoughts to ‘the brain’ is like saying your computer writes your entries in this thread. Humans think, humans write. They need normal brain function to do so, but it’s not ‘the brain’ which is doing that. Brains are always situated as part of a whole, which is precisely what ‘mereology’ refers to. — Wayfarer

You and I seem to be more attuned to Part/Whole paradoxes*1 than most forum posters. I suppose that sensitivity derives from a General/Holistic (philosophical) rather than Specific/Reductive (scientific) worldview. Ironically, I am better read in Science than in Philosophy --- but not much depth in either. So my Holism stems mainly from my focus on the multiform roles of Generic Information in the world : including Energy & Mind. It's not so much influenced by familiarity with Eastern philosophies.

In the context of this thread, the pertinent distinction seems to lie between Brain (as Mechanical Black Box) and Mind (as personal Agent : the Self). Mechanical processes, including those of neural nets, are governed by physical laws ; so are orderly, and though complex, somewhat predictable. But Agency is a more centralized & integrated & self-oriented, so less predictable, System than a scatter-brain. :joke:

*1. Merelogical Fallacy :
To ascribe attributes to a part of a whole that can properly be ascribed only to the whole-of-which-it-is-a-part is a mereological fallacy.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682961

I feel like it is too convenient just to try and correlate any concept and or mental state with a brain state and assume the brain state does all the explanatory work we need without an actual causal explanation.
It seems to lead to a kind of apathy where it is almost too much effort to look for another type of explanation. (For me anyway). It means fighting against an entrenched paradigm. — Andrew4Handel

As noted, the "paradigm" you are struggling with may be the Reductive perspective of Classical physical science (since Newton), which focuses on collections of parts, rather than whole systems. Since the isolated parts are not viewed in the context of an integrated interrelated System, the Cause of their functional integrity is a mystery : the Hard Problem.

Fortunately, a new way to do Science*2 has emerged, since Quantum physics was shown to be non-Mechanical and non-Classical. One place where Systems Science is being practiced is the Santa Fe Institute*3 for the study of Complexity. Whole systems may be internally complex, but externally they have a singular aspect. And the black-box human brain may be the most complex and integrated physical system in the universe. So, it's not surprising that the "entrenched paradigm" of Reductionism cannot explain how a tangled mass of neurons can become self-conscious, and can be aware of stored memories.

The Institute may not have discovered the ultimate "causal explanation" yet, but it is working toward that end. Perhaps the best known theory to come out of SFI is the Integrated Information Theory*4. I have my own theory of the First Cause that led to brain systems with a sense of Self. But I won't go into that complex concept in a single post. :smile:


*2. Systems Science is an interdisciplinary field that studies the complexity of systems in nature, social or any other scientific field. Some of the systems science methodologies include systems dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling, microsimulation, and Big Data techniques.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/systems-science

*3. Santa Fe Institute :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a group of scientists frustrated with the narrow disciplinary confines of academia. They wanted to tackle big questions that spanned different fields, and they felt the only way these questions could be posed and solved was through the intermingling of scientists of all kinds: physicists, biologists, economists, anthropologists, and many others.
https://www.santafe.edu/

*4. Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems (such as human brains) are conscious, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

"Memories" are functions, not "phenomena". — 180 Proof
What function do the memories of my brother serve. Or what function does my earliest memory of having a cold and being in a pram sucking a cough sweet on a wet day serve? — Andrew4Handel

's distinction between a Function and a Phenomenon may be relevant to your question. But not necessarily in the dismissive irrelevance he intended. A brain function*1 is a causal relationship between input & output, this because of that. And a phenomenon*2 is what the physical senses detect. So, objectively, there are no phenomena in your brain. Unless you count the targets of inwardly focused senses.

The brain receives inputs from bodily senses, evaluates that information relative to body welfare (survival), then sends outputs back down to various organs, as required to maintain the life processes of the system. A necessary function of that evaluation is the memory of previous experiences. So, the memory of your brother may be relevant to your social & familial support network (e.g. kin selection as an evolutionary strategy for genetic survival). In that case, a memory is a subjective phenomenon.

180 goes on to assert that "The brain itself does not have 'senses' of its own so "phenomena in the brain" – humuncular theory – does not make sense." The brain may not have a physical "little man organ" (homonculus) whose function is observation of external & internal phenomena. But it does connect to a variety of interoception & exteroception sensory organs to gather information about environmental & body states. Those combined sensory inputs, as a whole system, could be characterized as "senses of its own" : a metaphorical homonculus*4. And the evaluative or executive function of the brain could be viewed as a Symbolic-Self created by the brain's Imagination Function to serve as a mental model of the body system as a whole.

Therefore, the images created by the brain to represent external phenomena, could be construed as "phenomena in the brain". 180's distinction may be merely intended to point-out that internal models are Ideal, not Real; subjective, not objective*3. To you, memories of your brother are essential to your life story. But to him, the phenomena pictures in your brain are meaningless --- unless he can metaphorically resonate with your feelings. Subjective images of phenomena are immaterial, hence literally don't matter to those with a Materialist worldview. :smile:


*1. A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html

*2. A phenomenon, in a scientific context, is something that is observed to occur or to exist.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/phenomenon

*3. The Embodied Self and the Paradox of Subjectivity :
Broadly speaking, the paradox of subjectivity concerns the relationship of subjectivity or consciousness to the world. On the one hand, subjectivity constitutes or discloses objects, in the sense they have for us as conscious beings. On the other hand, subjectivity pertains to humans who are, of course, objects in the world. But these two claims do not seem to fit together well, although it is not immediately obvious what exactly the problem is.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10743-019-09256-4

*4. HOMONCULUS model of sensory detectors in brain

As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object — Gnomon
...or a property, like redness, roundness. X is red. X is round. X is conscious. — bert1

Yes. Measurable or sensible physical properties are how we identify & distinguish those stable material objects. Unfortunately, physical Properties and metaphysical Qualia are somewhat ambiguous. By definition, a Property is inherent-in or intrinsic-to the thing that "owns" that characteristic*1. A physical property is supposed to be measurable. But sometimes a property is attributed to a thing by the observer, when evidence is unavailable or unclear -- especially subatomic particles. A Quality is a mental abstraction from physical observation. So, we "know" concrete things only by making mental models to represent them.

Before the advent of Quantum physics, people assumed that Redness was a Property of apples. So, our mental images of apples typically include the property/quality of Redness. However, we can make objective measurements of the physical wavelengths of light energy, but we can only make subjective assessments of its color. Color is a Qualia not a Quanta. But, is Consciousness a quantitative Property or merely a qualitative Function*2 of the brain?

Consciousness (or Soul) is obviously not a tangible physical property. So, as a meta-physical quality, it is not measurable in objective units. However, Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory attempts to measure Consciousness indirectly by degree of integration*3. His assumption seems to be that shape-shifting Information is common to both Quanta and Qualia. And my own thesis argues that Energy is merely one form of generic Information, while Matter is another, and Mind is another. Hence the apparent Brain/Mind paradox*4. Can it be explained by Cartesian Dualism or by Russell's Monism*5, or by Enformationism?*6. Is the "Inmost Core" a property or a quality or both? :smile:



*1. Properties are the characteristics that enable us to differentiate one material from another. A physical property is an attribute of matter that is independent of its chemical composition.
https://byjus.com/chemistry/properties-of-matter/

*2. What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ...
https://www.mathsisfun.com › sets › function
Note -- A function is a mathematical Ratio, or a mental Relationship between things; not a thing itself.

*3. Sizing Up Consciousness by Its Bits :
Tononi argues that we could, in theory, measure consciousness in bits as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html

*4. The Brain/Mind Paradox :
But how does self-conscious awareness arise from physical operations of a material brain? The meat Brain and the ethereal Mind seem to be two completely different kinds of things. So reconciling meat with mind has been called the “hard problem” of philosophy. But it becomes easier if we look at the situation from the cosmic perspective of Enformationism. In that world-view, the fundamental element of our universe is immaterial information, best visualized as the completely abstract form of Logic we call Mathematics, along with its structure-defining geometric ratios. Where the physical brain sees real shapes, the meta-physical mind sees ideal geometry. Yet brain & mind are merely different forms of that creative element. So it shouldn’t be surprising that energy/information flowing through neurons could generate something like a mind-field.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page31.html

*5. Russellian Monism :
Russellian monism is a theory in the metaphysics of mind, on which a single set of properties underlies both consciousness and the most basic entities posited by physics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/

*6. Brain/Mind Enformation :
"The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind (if there is such a thing) and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism, and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? — 180 Proof
It isn't lost. The self is lost. Content is altered, but not consciousness. — bert1

One problem with "Consciousness" is defining what it is. As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object, instead of an impermanent process, function, state, or ability. Likewise, the Soul is often imagined as a timeless object, when in fact it is a temporary subjective imaginary concept, that can be turned-off like a light bulb. The brain is a physical machine, whose primary function is to monitor & control the body's life-support processes. That basic operating system (OS) is generally located in the brain stem (the reptile brain), not in the neo-cortex (mammalian brain), where the "movie" of working memory flows.

So, it's not surprising that, when injured, the brain shuts down non-essential (for life) functions. A computer can do the same thing, when a physical malfunction threatens to destroy the whole system. When the threat is over, the system reboots, and functions resume. The information processing ability wasn't "lost", it just temporarily ceased operation. Recovery from a concussion or coma is one example of a biological reboot.

Likewise, the "inmost core of being" is not a real thing, but an ideal abstract concept, created by the brain to represent the Life & Awareness functions of the body. So that "core" is not an Object to be lost, but a Subject to be aware of, or not. The human body's Operating System is essential for Life processes, but not for Mind processes. Therefore, the OS can "shut down" non-essential processes temporarily, without affecting the fundamental operating functions that we call "Life" : also, not a thing, but a process.

What we humans call "Consciousness" seems to be Awareness of working memory. Again, that awareness is not a physical thing, but something like a sampling of ongoing brain processes. So, it's that Self-Reflective Ability that remains to be explained in physical terms. How does the brain produce Ideal representations of reality, that are knowable by the Self, which is also a mind picture created by the brain to represent the body/brain system as a whole? :smile:

PS__I'm just riffing here. I'm not an expert on such technical & esoteric questions. Merely an interested User of the Awareness function of my biological computing system. If someone prefers to label that self-image poetically as "The Soul", that's OK with me. The various aspects of Consciousness can only be defined metaphorically, by analogies to physical things or processes, such as Breathing. But, like Life, it's a fragile process that can be "lost" permanently when the energy flow is interrupted by a broken circuit. Too bad, we can't just solder the wires, or replace the battery. :joke:


Various Concepts of Consciousness :
The concept of consciousness is notoriously ambiguous. It is important first to make several distinctions and to define related terms. The abstract noun “consciousness” is not often used in the contemporary literature . . .
https://iep.utm.edu/consciousness/

What Makes a Computer Just Suddenly Power Off? :
A PC shutting down suddenly is usually a sign of a power problem and can be extremely frustrating. This can cause you to lose whatever you're working on, but it may also be a sign of damage to the computer itself. Generally, when a computer powers down on its own it's due to the power supply, malware, overheating or driver issues.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/computer-just-suddenly-power-off-67117.html
Note -- working memory, what you were working on, is lost after a shut-down

Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

I apologize for the defensive response above. But used to begin his sarcastic put-downs with a disrespectful "respectfully". Instead of responding to my itemized conjectures with specific refutations, he would dismissively recommend that I submissively "educate" my ignorant self -- "study", "understand", "read" -- on The Truth (whatever "settled" Science says). Presumably, anything that fits his scientific paradigm is respectable, and anything else is not suitable for philosophical discussions.

With no formal training in academic philosophy, I used to be uncertain, unassertive, and easily pushed around by sophist bullies. Now, after years of retirement leisure, and forum philosophizing, I tend to respond to derogation with a flood of information. Not expecting to change his shuttered mind, but merely to show that I've done my homework . . . even though not on the required reading list. I no longer waste my time trying to dialog with him. So, you can tell him how you detected bullshit and bashed baloney. :smile:

PS__Yes, I am familiar with Carl Sagan's "baloney detector" for pseudoscience. But the topic of this thread is, by your own admission, beyond current scientific proof or disproof. So, why not let philosophy have a go at it?

PPS__Typically superciliously refers to self-defense posts like this as "whining". Yet it's merely intended to reopen the dialog without the disrespect. Do you think that sarcasm & arrogance are appropriate philosophical forum etiquette? How would you respond to a put-down post?

Supercilious : behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.

Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason? — Gnomon
You are just proving my point. — plaque flag

What point are you pointing at? That I think outside the box of conventional science? Well, duh! What else do you expect on a freaking Philosophy Forum? Goose-stepping ideologues?

FYI, I'm merely reflecting your challenge back at you. Are you afraid of philosophical mysteries? Is Idealism too scary to think about? Are you trying to prove that you are a doctrinaire disciple of Scientism, as the final authority on all things? Try to think for yourself once in a while. Step outside the creed, and sample the infinite varieties of reality and ideality. :joke:

From previous post : If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 10-006/pdf

The Myth of Objectivity :
What we know is generally considered to be the result of our exploration of the real world, of the way things really are. . . . How we know is a far more vexing problem. To solve it, the mind needs to step outside itself, so to speak for at this point we are no longer with facts that apparently exist independently of us in the outside world ...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-0115-8_2

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — plaque flag

Are you a Materialist or Mysterian or both? Are such ultimate questions off-limits on a Philosophy Forum? Of course such topics are beyond the scope of physical Science, but we're talking about non-physical Mind here, on a Philosophy forum. AFAIK, the only thing blocking the human mind from contemplating its own genesis is a Physicalist prejudice. I can respect the Mysterian position on scientific topics. But in this thread, we're discussing abstract subjective general Principles, not concrete objective specific Objects. Aren't we? :smile:


Philosophy's explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Mysterian :
…of thinkers, known as “mysterians,” who claim that, although we know that the conscious mind is nothing more than the brain, it is simply beyond the conceptual apparatus of human beings to understand how this can be the case.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysterian
Noe -- How do "we know" that Consciousness is nothing more than a Brain function. That's a tautology, not a scientific fact.

“The term physical is just kinda like an honorific word, kinda like the word 'real' when we say 'the real truth'. It doesn't add anything, it just says 'this is serious truth'. So to say that something is 'physical' today just means 'you gotta take this seriously'.”
― Noam Chomsky
Note -- From a Physicalist perspective, if it ain't physical you shouldn't take it seriously. But, on this forum, non-physical topics are de rigueur. And some of us take Subjective ideas very seriously.

Ontology
To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer

1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals? — Gnomon
Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

It would be more helpful if, rather than point fingers, you would try to answer the "how" question above. Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason?

FWIW, My non-academic thesis & blog are built upon 18th century evolution theory, plus 21st century Systems Biology, and other cutting-edge ideas about ideas. I even have my own hypothesis (conjecture?) about how "random Chance", plus non-random Selection, could work together (like a computer program's Data + Criteria) to evolve rational thinking beings. For years, I've been following the Santa Fe Institute's research into Complexity (in general), and Complex Adaptive Systems (in particular). So I'm better informed on such questions than the average layman. And, like the Institute scientists, I like to think outside the conventional box. :smile:



Santa Fe Institute
the scientists sought a forum to conduct theoretical research outside the traditional disciplinary boundaries of academic departments and government agency science budgets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

Systems Biology
Denis Noble, Oxford University & Santa Fe Institute
https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/19/6/systems-biology-as-defined-by-nih
A Holistic approach to living organisms that goes beyond the self-imposed limitations of traditional Reductive scientific methods. A Systems View of the world only became doable since computers accelerated & expanded the pace & reach of human inference. Reductive methods are an old-fashioned hang-over from the times when scientists used pencils & chalk to record their thought processes.

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — Gnomon
As far as I can tell, the only 'mystery' (and I think 180 Proof agrees ?) is that of any postulated origin, because we can always ask but why ? Why this and not something else ? — plaque flag

Since the Big Bang Theory didn't begin at the ultimate beginning, I'd call that missing "ultimate source" the Big Mystery. Are you aware of any inherent limits on empirical Science? Such as the explanatory gap called "The Singularity" (defined by lack of definition). Despite the lack of data from the Great Beyond, many scientists have continued to probe into the darkness before the postulated Big Bang --- Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverse --- with no grounds other than speculation on "what if?" based on limited knowledge of "what is".

Philosophy is built upon conjectures into the unknown, with no "grounds" except the human talent for inference : Reason. If you want to know "what is?", post on a Science site. But if you want to know "what if?", post on a Philosophy forum. Pragmatic Science doesn't ask "why?" questions. Why ask "why?" if you don't want to hear conjectures? "Why" questions tend to put devout Materialists on the defensive. Give a high five for me. :smile:

PS___I wasn't using the term "mystery" as a black box into which you can postulate any possibility. Instead, it was simply a pragmatic admission of limitation, and an aspirational challenge to go beyond physical limits with imagination and rational speculation. If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm . :joke:

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain
https://www.space.com/8066-big-bang-solid-theory-mysteries-remain.html

Mystery behind the Big Bang theory revealed!
https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/mystery-behind-the-big-bang-theory-revealed-and-some-tech-and-gadgets-that-caught-it-71663128550229.html

Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7208/9780226300610-006/pdf

↪Gnomon
That George Harrison song had a big impact on my teenage self. — Wayfarer

Harrison's sanguine song, was probably inspired by his affiliation with Hindu philosophy, which seemed to promise a more peaceful world of introverted navel-gazers, instead of aggressive money-grubbers. Due to my own experience with religious hype though, I tended to be less optimistic about knowing the absolute truth, which will "set you free". :smile:

Aspirational Hyperbole :
"Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth"

Know all things :
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1 John 2:20-29 King James Version (KJV)

You might be interested in reading up on Terrence Deacon, Incomplete Nature. — Wayfarer

Been there, done that. Completely inspired by the notion of Absential forces (attractors) in Nature. :smile:

'the uncreated light' (The comparison with 'energy' is misplaced, because, unless it is directed, energy always flows in the direction indicated by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. to greater and greater disorder. It possesses no intrinsic intelligence.) — Wayfarer

The Oracle of Apollo was inspired by psychedelic fumes in the cave. Quakers also sit and wait for their "inner light" to move them to speak wisdom. But --- as a dispassionate thinker --- even when I was immersed in my relatively rational fundamentalist religion, I never experienced an inner light as a message from God. Unless, of course, it refers to the various inspirations of Intuition*1. Apparently, intuitive ideas & imagery may seem to come from outside the person experiencing the feeling*2. But the light of intuition seems to be a common aesthetic -- and perhaps informative -- experience for both religious and non-religious people*3*4, regardless of doctrinal differences.

Regarding comparisons of inspirational human religious experiences to physical energy, it may be more accurately defined as meta-physical energy. In the Enformationism thesis, the universal causal force in the world is labelled EnFormAction, the power to enform : both physical forms (things) & mental forms (ideas). Another way to describe world-creating EnFormy is as energy + direction ( a vector). Those philosophical conjectures presume that Evolution is not completely random, but statistical Chaos (possibility generator) + intentional Selection (probability criteria). For me, those notions are not aesthetically illuminating, but rationally informative (elucidating?)*5. :nerd:

*1. Intuition : a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

*2. Psychology : Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.

*3. “All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge,” Einstein once told a friend, according to Psychology Today.

*4. The Inner Light
George Harrison, 1968

Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth
Without looking out of my window
I could know the ways of heaven

The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows

Without going out of your door
You can know all things on earth
With out looking out of your window
You can know the ways of heaven

The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows

Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing

*5. inspirational intuition - Drivers of innovation :
Visions and imaginations open up options for action beyond the beaten solution paths. This is what we call “inspirational intuition”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021020260

" Intuition has all the dark, mystical energy of the chaotic Feminine and Rationality all of the bright, systematized knowledge of the ..." ___William James. attr.

I think science united with philosophy addressing ultimate questions might produce a religion that satisfies Watts’ vision. — Art48

Yes. I think the "compartmentalization" of Science vs Religion was mostly political*1, not philosophical. For example, Aristotle established basic categories for both physical Nature and metaphysical Culture (ideas). So, my personal philosophy makes no political distinction between empirical and theoretical methods of exploration into the unknown territories of the world. :smile:

*1. Political : revolt of independent thinkers against tyrannical imperial yes-men. : "the edict of a Christian emperor closed the doors of the Academy, and drove the little band of philosophers out into exile."

I suggest that we drop the ocular metaphor and talk about dancing. In other words, we perform 'universals' in the way we trade marks and noises. This 'seeing' of 'form' (this metaphorical interpretation of our situation) has its pros and cons. It's helped us trick ourselves into believing in ghosts. — plaque flag

Since humans are primarily visual creatures, our metaphors tend to emphasize imagination. But we also have some limited sense of "natural rhythm". So, maybe we "dance" to the tune that harmonizes with our innate rhythmic patterns. However, it may also be possible that we "hear" a tempo that we are predisposed to rock to. Dancing with ghost music? :joke:

If one insists that X installed such concepts in us, without being able to provide details, where X is more mysterious than we are ourselves, then this allusion to X is a sentimental antiexplanation, a hiding-from rather than an addressing-of our lack of clarity about of our nature. Or so I claim. — plaque flag

Unfortunately, the mysterious "installer", Mr. X, could be either Nature or God or some other First Cause. As noted above, "functional brain structure may establish the basic categories into which we catalog our sensory experience." {my interpretation} But, the details to support that natural explanation are scarce.

Even the notion of "Nature" as an "installer" agent is an imaginary humanoid rationalization of a trial & error process. So, it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery*1, missing in the a priori gap of Big Bang theory, which doesn't actually begin at the beginning. Therefore, any "Installer" we might posit might be a "sentimental antiexplanation". Nevertheless, I have developed a non-empirical, and un-sentimental theory of my own : X = Enformer. :cool:


*1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals?

Empiricism and naturalism have an innate bias against the idea of innate knowledge (irony alert!) Whereas, I believe that the a priori reflects innate structures within the mind that are operative in the exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

Yes. It seems likely that functional brain structure may establish the basic categories into which we catalog our sensory experience. But a quick Google search didn't find much corroboration. However, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate argued against the then-prevailing cultural bias of the Nature vs Nurture and Gene vs Environment politics. He provided evidence to support the notion that much of characteristic human behavior (perhaps including reasoning facility) is built-in at birth. Even Intuition may indicate that, prior to conscious thought, we instinctively recognize the logic behind sensory inputs : categories plus experience. Maybe Idealism is related to those innate epistemological categories (what ought to be true), and Realism is more influenced by our direct personal experience of the world (e.g. poverty or wealth). Surely some scientist or philosopher has investigated the roots of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. :smile:


In epistemology, Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge, and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses, is called Empiricism. ___Wiki

The contents of human minds are Ideal (in the sense of subjective concepts), and everything else is more or less Real. From that perspective Universals are merely memes in human minds. Whether they exist elsewhere is debatable. But we like to think that mathematical Principles and physical Laws are somehow Real, since evidence for them is found consistently in Nature. :smile: — Gnomon

To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer

Yes. Aristotle studied both Physics and Metaphysics as different aspects of comprehensive "Nature". Today, empirical scientists claim the royal realm of Reality, and leave the plebeian domain of Ideality to feckless philosophers & "soft" scientists. IMHO though, theoretical scientists, like Einstein, are actually philosophers, who serve the needs of noble empiricists by converting their sensory swine into savory pork for the plate. (Please pardon the tongue-in-cheek metaphors)

In physical Reality, everything is Particular, except that rational minds somehow "see" General (holistic) patterns, known as "Universals" & "Principles". And the most innovative philosopher/scientists refer to those Ideal (unreal) Universals in order to "decide what constitutes evidence". Physical evidence -- to be meaningful -- must fit the metaphysical pattern of Laws & Principles & Universals.

Ontology, as the study of Being, could divide Existence into a> Real things and b> Ideal concepts about things. Knowledge of reality is necessarily a posteriori sense experience, but where does a priori (non-sense) knowledge come from? Aristotle seemed to assume that humans are born with an innate sense of Reason*1, that fills-in the gaps between instances, to imagine the invisible logical structural patterns of reality (wholes & holons).

The theory of a posteriori knowledge presumes a "blank slate" to write upon, while the hypothesis of a priori information assumes that Reason is the (god-given or Darwin-bestowed?) innate writing instrument in the human mind. Reason perceives Logical patterns and conceives abstract representations on the immaterial chalkboard of the mind.

Imperial empirical Science daintily uses its forks & knives to slice & dice Ontology into easily digested chunks of physical information. Yet, Philosophy greedily gulps down un-pre-masticated lumps (holons) of metaphysical information, leaving it to innate intuitive Reason to digest into relevant meanings. Scientists assume, without hard evidence, that there are a priori innate Laws that the instances of evidence are supposed to add-up to. But where did those rules-for-Reason come from? And why do philosophers also assume the existence of such Ideal Forms, to serve as axioms by which to reason? :nerd:


*1. a priori :
I'm not sure exactly where Aristotle thought the pre-existence (or from the beginning) of universals & principles might originate. Since he seemed skeptical of a literal Ideal realm, could a priori be the Mind of God? Or is it just an innate skill, that today we might say was an evolutionary adaptation?

Well, there is mysterianism which takes a similar view. But I am not a philosopher - just interested in what the themes and issues are and what some people believe and why. — Tom Storm

Yes, but Mysterianism takes the "know nothing" approach only for very select few questions, such as "God" & "Consciousness". Which are mystifying simply because they are immaterial & metaphysical, hence beyond the scope of empirical evidence. But they are not beyond the scope of rational inference, from what physical & metaphysical evidence we do have access to.

For example, Cosmologists used the astronomical evidence then available -- surprisingly indicating expansion of the universe, long assumed to be static & eternal -- to trace the expansion back to a point where their calculations gave infinite outputs. Yet, the general consensus of a Big Bang beginning, left a Big ("god") Gap to be filled by reasonable speculation*1. AFAIK, metaphysical (why?) questions are all that's left for philosophical minds to do, since empirical methods replaced theological scholasticism centuries ago. "What some people believe and why" is a metaphysical question, that won't be answered with empirical evidence.

I too, am not a formally trained philosopher, but merely a curious layman. And I only began to spend time on "philosophical" non-empirical (why?) questions after I retired from productive work. I don't get paid for my time posting mini-essays that may be read by one or two people. Nevertheless, I enjoy engaging with mysteries that have baffled better minds than mine. For me, philosophy is a cheap hobby. :smile:


*1. Why some cosmologists found the Big Bang offensive :
Today, we speak of the Big Bang model of cosmology, but it was not always so. For two decades, the Big Bang model battled against the steady state model. This pitted a Universe with a beginning against an eternal Universe. In the absence of data, philosophical prejudice often drives research.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/steady-state-universe-big-bang/

I don't think you do. It's my point that needs clarification. Like most people, I have no expertise in consciousness and only a passing interest. And the subject is a hotbed of controversy and incomplete understanding. Why would I attempt to acquire an account of it with those limitations? Ditto quantum physics. I am more than comfortable staying away. And I wish more people with no expertise would also stay away from such matters. — Tom Storm

That's a surprising position on a philosophy forum. As Descartes concluded, Personal Consciousness is the only thing we know for sure. Everything else is a theory. I assume the "expertise" you mentioned is limited to empirical scientists, since theoretical scientists, lacking hard evidence, can only guess about Consciousness as a general principle. So, the topic has been vexatious for theoretical scientists & philosophers for millennia*1, and untouchable by empirical scientists forever.

Immaterial Consciousness has been off-topic (extraneous, immaterial, inappropriate, inconsequential) for empirical scientists, for obvious reasons. Empirical evidence for non-physical Awareness is completely absent. Until recently, that is. Since information theorists concluded that Information occurs in both Mental & Material forms*2, the possibility of empirical experiments has been taken seriously. Especially by the Santa Fe Institute*3 in New Mexico, near Los Alamos, where mathematical quantum abstractions (ideas) were converted into actual physical earth-shaking power.

Since my philosophical worldview is centered on Information Theory, I am not vexed by the spookiness of Consciousness, but entranced. For empiricists, the notion of Consciousness as a ding an sich is often dismissed as religious nonsense or silly Idealism. But I have come to view the idea of Platonic Ideals through a frame of Pragmatic Idealism*4. Unfortunately, I have none of the kind of expertise you are looking for. I'm just an amateur philosopher asking "what if" questions about both Reality and Ideality. :smile:


*1. What Is Consciousness? :
Scientists are beginning to unravel a mystery that has long vexed philosophers
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/

*2. Is Information Physical? :
It Depends On What You Mean by Physical… So my first point here is that information, like entropy, is a physical thing. It’s an extensive property…
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/07/is-information-physical-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-physical/

*3. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit research and education center that leads global research in complexity science.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/faq
Note -- Complex Systems are holistic combinations of Matter & Mind (logical structure = Information) .

*4. Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html

↪Gnomon
Up until quite recently, 'realism' in philosophy meant 'realism with respect to universals' i.e. some form of Platonic or Aristotelian realism. Today's realism, 'realism with respect to mind-independent objects of perception', is a very recent arrival. — Wayfarer

Thanks, but. Since I'm not educated in the technicalities of academic philosophy, for me, "Realism" means naive realism. In the Enformationism thesis, I distinguish between Realism & Idealism in my own idiosyncratic ways, relative to the various roles of Information in the world. More specifically, the distinction is relative to, what Murray Gell-Mann labeled IGUSES (information gathering and utilizing systems). Humans being the exemplars of those knowledge gatherers. The contents of human minds are Ideal (in the sense of subjective concepts), and everything else is more or less Real. From that perspective Universals are merely memes in human minds. Whether they exist elsewhere is debatable. But we like to think that mathematical Principles and physical Laws are somehow Real, since evidence for them is found consistently in Nature. :smile:

After all these years, the origin of meta-physical Consciousness in a physical world remains a mystery. — Gnomon
I agree that there is no certainty about this. But I don't believe this gives us permission to fill the gap with metaphysical speculation. We don't know. I'm not even sure we have the right questions about this subject yet. We have an incomplete understanding. Yet I am sympathetic to the idea that consciousness is a kind of illusory phenomenon. But I would never argue that this is the case until we know more. — Tom Storm

I see a need to clarify what I mean by the general label for topics related to enigmas like Consciousness. For some modern philosophers, Metaphysics has a stigma of ir-rational un-truth, compared to the rational facts presented by empirical science. "If it ain't physical it ain't real". Yet that negative association derived mainly from reactions to medieval Catholic Scholasticism, which used spiritual assumptions & speculations to support official church dogma and propaganda.

However, that's not the kind of Meta-Physics*1 I'm referring to. Instead, I associate that descriptive label {{addendum to Aristotle's compendium on Nature}} with the second volume that focused, not on physical things, but non-physical ideas & opinions about Nature in general --- including Mind & Consciousness. Metaphysics is about Aboutness*2.

According to my understanding of Meta-Physics, the soft sciences of Psychology, Sociology, History, etc are primarily philosophical & metaphysical*3. They do try to collect "hard" data to support their speculations on topics that lie beyond the empirical tools of Physics. Due to "incomplete understanding" though, their hypotheses rarely reach the mathematical precision and theoretical utility of E=MC^2. Moreover, their conclusions remain unverifiable by empirical methods, hence endlessly debatable by philosophical methods. Sound familiar? :smile:

PS___ "Consciousness" as an "Illusory phenomenon" sounds like an interesting topic for another thread. Unless you want to pursue it in this one. Are illusions physical or meta-physical?



*1. 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.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. Aboutness :
Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena. ____Terrence Deacon : Incomplete Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature
He variously defines reference as "aboutness" or "re-presentation," the semiotic or semantic relation between a sign-vehicle and its object.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Quantum Psychology : How Brain Software Programs You and Your World :
"Quantum Psychology offers a coherent and humorous description of how our thoughts, values and behaviors have been colored by our use of language and our prevailing view of the universe."
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Psychology-Brain-Software-Programs/dp/0692767045
PS --- "Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You & Your World is a book written by science-fiction writer Robert Anton Wilson, originally published in 1990. It deals with what Wilson himself calls "quantum psychology," which is not a field within academic psychology." ___Wikipedia

I agree with this. Kastrup has taken an old song and is having a lot of success playing it to a new tune. His replacement ontology seems to want it both ways: everything is mental, but there's an "outside" world where evolution somehow still works. How are there any random events in an idealistic reality? — RogueAI

I'm not an expert on Kastrup's neo-idealism, but it makes sense to me --- because I don't interpret his position as contradictory Idealism versus Realism. Instead, I frame it as complementary Idealism within Realism or Realism within Idealism, depending on the context. Perhaps he does"want it both ways". But that's what philosophers do : look for orderly patterns in a disorderly world.

As non-empirical philosophers, it's hard to deny that there are both "inside" ideas (concepts) and "outside" objects (percepts). So there are indeed "random events" in physical reality, and "non-random" order in metaphysical mentality (i.e. Reason imposes static order on -- extracts orderly patterns from -- a mutating & evolving dynamic world). Reason takes statistical snapshots of constantly changing reality. Those "frozen" mental images are what we could call "Ideality". :smile:

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". — Benj96
"Change" is incompatible with "stable property" — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, there is one substance in the world with the consistent property of causing change. That universal Substance (Aristotle's essence)*1 functions like an enzyme in the world : it causes Change, but does not itself change. That substance is what we call "Energy". It is invisible & intangible & immaterial, but it's what makes the world go 'round.

With regard to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, one form of Energy may be essential to understanding how Awareness emerged from dumb Matter. Modern physicists have equated Energy with Information*2 : the invisible, intangible, immaterial contents of Minds. Claude Shannon discovered that problems with communication of Information -- from one mind to another -- were due to Entropy. And Entropy is the inverse of Energy. Which is why physicists refer to the opposite of negative Entropy as positive Negentropy. In math, the negative of a negative is positive. The general role of Energy is to cause change; and the role of Entropy is to destruct what was constructed by positive Energy. Ironically, we don't have a proper name for that constructive causation. Until now.

Negentropy is an efficacious form of Energy, but the label doesn't sound positive. That's why I like to call it -- in this context -- Enformy*3. So, the role of Enformy in the world is to produce constructive change : to Enform ; to give form to the formless. It's the creative force in the world that counteracts destructive Entropy. And, since the original (pre-Shannon) meaning of "information" referred to mind-stuff, it may also be the positive constructive causal force behind Consciousness, which creates ideal mental models of the real world. So, if you can accept that shape-shifting Information is also the essence of Consciousness, then the so-called "Hard Problem" becomes simpler. You do the math. :smile:


*1. Substance and Essence in Aristotle :
focusing on Aristotle's account of form or essence.
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801421266/substance-and-essence-in-aristotle/#bookTabs=1

*2. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" hypothesis "anticipated ongoing speculation that consciousness is fundamental to reality".

*3. Enformy :
Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html