So tell me, according to current science, what does ultimately exist? — Wayfarer
Well which "current science" is your non-scientific question referring to, Wayf? — 180 Proof

Objection, your honor, the defense is being evasive. The question was not asking about any particular genre of science, but merely about a scientific rather than philosophical position. Please direct the defense to answer the question about Ultimate Existence.

A possible answer -- though not scientific -- would be "No Ultimate Existence, only Proximate" : right here, right now. Not acceptable, because the questioner requested an empirical scientific fact to ground whatever opinion is offered. And a scientific answer would have to account for the un-resolved state of knowledge about the origin of the physical universe. It is observed to exist, but how or why did everything emerge from the unknown? Thus, addressing the creation/existence problem raised in the OP.

Aside : At this point, a scientist would probably just punt, but a philosopher would go for it on fourth down. Pardon the American hand/football metaphor. :joke:

Stipulation
Ultimate : being or happening at the beginning or end of a process
Existence : the state of being real or participating in reality.

Just to clarify though, the body/soul - instrument/harmony analogy is Pythagorean, not Platonic. Plato has Socrates argue against the analogy in the Phaedo. It's in the context of Plato's arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul. Plato doesn't like the analogy because it would imply that the soul (harmony) must disappear when the body (instrument) is destroyed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks. But it's a useful metaphor anyway. I may have to disagree with Plato though, on the immortality of the Soul. I tend to think of it, not as a ghost, but as the immaterial (mental ; metaphorical) Self-Concept/Personality of a self-conscious being/body*1. Hence, they are harmonious in the sense of an abstract/concrete duet. But when the concrete aspect dies, the duet does not automatically become a perpetual solo, but perhaps could "exist" as a vague memory in another mind. Besides, how could that which was never visible "disappear", like the fictional Cheshire cat? On this topic, you could classify my compromised position as a Physicalist/Metaphysicalist or Realist/Idealist duet. Not exactly Strong Emergence, but co-existence.

On the other hand, I do agree with Plato that a hypothetical First Cause/Logos must have logically existed, in some abstract or metaphysical sense, outside of space-time and all secondary causes. Hence, eternal. That's because, according to expert cosmologists, our space-time world is not eternal, but somehow suddenly emerged from unreality into reality. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing what ideal eternal existence would be like (Nagel).

As an amateur philosopher though, I can use mind-made words to represent unreal concepts such as Zero, Infinity, Eternity, and Soul. Likewise, words like "God" can point-toward an imaginary eternal Mind that continually imagines (sustains) our own Reality. Sadly, such self-reference boggles the mortal mind, and can lead to circular thinking.

The human intellect has imagined a variety of immaterial abstractions --- e.g. numbers ; metaphors --- that seem to be logically necessary or philosophically useful. Such non-things may be figments of imagination, but they are "persistent illusions" for philosophical thinkers. So I take them seriously, as challenges to any hardline physicalist worldview. :smile:


*1. Soul/Body and Mind/Body pairs "exist" in different senses. Life, Mind & Soul/Self are subjective processes/activities, not objective things. For example, when the engine of a car dies, its transportation function (process) dies with it. Yet, a physical machine can be repaired and restored to its proper function. But AFAIK, a "disappeared" Life/Mind has never been resurrected --- except of course as an ongoing metaphor/belief in other body/minds.

In short, when philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power, a very interesting conversation can begin. — Dermot Griffin

Meaning is personal, and Power is communal. So, the pursuit of Meaning is Philosophical, while the pursuit of Power is Political. :smile:

I was just reading the Phaedo for a class and it hit me that Plato's argument that the soul cannot be analogous to a harmony is literally the same argument against strong emergence that is still giving physicalists a headache 2,000+ years later. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Platonic concept of Body/Soul integrity, as a harmonious interaction, is new to me. So I googled it. As an analogy to pleasing musical synchrony*1, such essential consonance is posited by most religious & philosophical traditions : e.g Taoism. But from the perspective of modern Physicalism, such non-mechanical notions may be dismissed as romantic nonsense.

However, while my own personal worldview does not use the obsolete term "Soul" --- in the sense of an independent ghost --- the unity of Body & Mind is implicit. So, I see now that "Person"*2 can be described in terms of Body/Mind harmony, as defined in the 20th century sciences of Holism*3 and Systems theory*4. A System is a collection of independent parts (holons) that work together, in harmony, to form a new unity, with new functions. Hence, the human body/mind is an animated & enminded system that can't be separated into parts without killing the Life and extinguishing the Mind. Since Life & Mind go together like a flock of birds, eliminating one or the other will not result in a philosophical zombie, but in a corpse. :smile:


*1. What is Synchrony in music?
Musical synchrony increases a sense of shared intentionality and decreases the experience of self-other distinction [21,22,23,24], and can relate to a sense of communal identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946180/

*2. Person :
A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness,
Note --- That the "Being" --- more than a Thing --- is also a physical body is implicit, but not stated explicitly in the definition.

*3. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. What is holistic science? :
Holistic Science is a new and emerging science of systems and wholes, qualities and values. It allows us to look at the social, economic and ecological issues of the 21st Century in a new light. It helps us to come to understandings that go beyond the limits of our current scientific paradigm.
https://www.masterscompare.co.uk/masters-courses/holistic-science-23096/24594/


A HARMONY OF BIRDS

Many well-read participants here will read one or two statements from another and be reminded of some historical position or another simply by the appearance of a few key words that have been used in past. — creativesoul

I doubt that many posters on this forum are quite so simple-minded as that. Our personal vocabularies contain categorized beliefs encapsulated in "key words". But the purpose of a discussion forum is for us to open-up those capsules in order to learn about other beliefs, and to add new terminology to better define our own beliefs. A few may assume these threads are legal arguments intended to reveal The Truth as God intended. But mostly, we are satisfied to get a step "Closer to Truth".

Key words, especially "-isms", encapsulate complex belief systems into simple generalizations, that we use to avoid Talmudic verbosity. Yet, they also allow us to quickly see the "key" (salience) to our disagreements. Then, we can explore the implicit meanings behind the symbolic words, looking for areas where our beliefs may overlap or divide. With logical leverage we may be able to open a path to reach some philosophical detente, if not total agreement. :smile:

Unfortunately, you seem convinced that you know what my position is. It's a shame that that's the case, because I do not think that you do. — creativesoul

No, I am not convinced of your position on Physicalism, because such a universal concept includes a plethora of unstated assumptions, that we need to work through in order to reach a more specific understanding. For example, Physicalism, Materialism, and Naturalism are related worldviews, that differ in a few details. If none of those terms are close to your position, is there another label that you would accept?

My own worldview does not fit into any of the traditional categories --- such as Realism or Idealism --- so I have coined new words & phrases & labels, intended to suggest a novel way of looking at the world. On this forum, to establish my own position --- without excessive verbiage --- I provide links to expand upon my brief remarks in the post. After only a few interchanges, do you think you "know my position"? Are you open to further communication? :cool:

As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist" — Gnomon
There, you were spot on. That seems an unbridgeable divide between Way and myself. He insists that consciousness does not exist, and to me... that makes no sense. On my view, everything spoken about exists. It's just a matter of how. Simply put: That which has an effect/affect exists(is real). — creativesoul

I don't know where you got the idea that denies the existence of Consciousness. He does deny that Awareness is a physical object, but I assume you would agree with that. Your definition in terms of causation may be closer than you think to his, and to my own, understanding of both Physical and Metaphysical existence. Check-out Way's essay linked below, for his musings on "to be or to know". :wink:

*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-ligatures-of-reason-66b775d443d1

Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed.
— creativesoul
Yes, the awareness of physical emergence... — Gnomon
Here, you said "yes", but did not understand what you were agreeing to. I was claiming that that bit of knowledge was an emergent entity/thing. That was all I was saying at that time. — creativesoul

I was agreeing to your reference to an action (what's going on) that results in the "knowledge" (awareness ; conceptualization) that something novel has emerged from the transaction. Your emphasis may have been on knowledge as a "thing" (objective or subjective?), but mine was on the emergence as a transformation of one "thing" into another "kind of thing" (subjective Idea). :nerd:

I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning — Gnomon
So, we seem to agree that minds are existentially dependent upon brains. — creativesoul

Yes. As I said before, I am not aware of any free-floating minds (ghosts) in the real world. But, I do see the logical necessity for the Potential-to-evolve-Minds in the original "seed" of our contingent universe : popularly known as Big Bang, or Singularity, or God. However, you may not agree with that universalization of Mind Potential --- not as an entity, but as a Creative Cause. :grin:

Potential : the power to change statistical Possibility into physical Actuality

Hence the flatland of secular culture, dominated by relativism, scepticism and instrumental utility. Reconciling that has been my major interest. — Wayfarer

"Here he comes to save the day!" It's super-mensch to the rescue of dystopian society! :joke:

Mensch : a person of integrity and honor.
Perhaps a heroic philosopher?
Super-mensch the Reconciler?

If the worldview of Scientism dismisses metaphysical reasoning as groundless then I'd say that physicalism is groundless, since physicalism is a belief arrived at by metaphysical reasoning.
As such it would be a poor argument for physicalism. — Moliere

Ironically, all universal -isms --- including Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, and Idealism --- are beliefs based on Metaphysical induction. And they are groundless, in the sense that universals are not empirically derived. So, their value is only in that they distinguish one philosophical worldview from another.

Hence, Physicalism is differentiated from Materialism in that it implies more than one fundamental element : matter and energy. The essential rock of Scientism is the empirical scientific method, which grounds Physics, but not Philosophy. Idealism is founded on the mushy terrain of Concepts, which distinguishes that belief system from those grounded on Percepts. The non-empirical -isms can only be justified by pure logical reasoning, which Kant identified with Metaphysical Philosophy. :smile:


"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." ___ Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I always thought Shannon Information was a poor choice of a word. It's a technical specialty that's made a huge impact but isn't good science or philosophy just because of that.

I might sometimes look like I'm defending physicalism or be some how attached to it but I'm not. It just gets us to the point where we do what we do with our brains which really is the interesting part. And not just in philosophy.

Since our brains/minds seem to be capable of believing anything, true or false, having some grounding in the physical basis might keep us from getting off track. — Mark Nyquist

Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher. So, he was interested in getting measurable physical results (communication data throughput), not in exploring the metaphysical meaning of his term "Information". That's OK though, others have taken-up that task. My interest in Information was piqued by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical concept of "it from bit". Together, these two thinkers gave us new insight in the broader significance of mental ideas, by linking those incorporeal "bits" with real-world changes in material things (its). In other words, en-formation is causation. In my thesis, mental Information (useful knowledge) is merely one of many forms of General Causation, that I call EnFormAction.

If you were a working scientist, Physicalism --- nothing non-physical --- would be an appropriate belief system for your profession. But for philosophical thinkers, there is more to the world than just tangible things (materialism). Philosophy is concerned with non-things like Ideas & Opinions & Beliefs, that can't be dissected with a scalpel, and can't be reduced down to Atoms. Physicalism implies that there is only one way to exist : Reality. But, in his essay The Ligatures of Reason*1, discusses the Ideal existence of "universals", such as number, math & logic. Scientists study particular things, but Philosophers study general & holistic concepts. That approach is what came to be known as "Metaphysics". Literally, "in addition to physical Reality" (i.e. Ideality), not necessarily super-natural, or un-real. Unfortunately, Catholic theology tainted that aspect of Philosophy by association with dubious religious dogma.

So yes, as amateur philosophers, we should be held accountable for the "grounds" of our reasoning. But material Science is not the only valid foundation for philosophical interpretations & conclusions. For non-rational animals, the physical facts may be all they know. But, us rational humans share ideas & opinions that can't be accepted at face-value. Instead, philosophers have developed Logical rules and Rational methods for sifting the grain from the chaff. Whereas, Physics uses Reductive & Deductive means to determine reliable facts, Philosophy uses Holistic & Inductive reasoning to learn what is universally true. Unfortunately, some posters on this forum hold the materialistic worldview of Scientism, which dismisses Metaphysical reasoning as groundless. Instead, I have adopted a BothAnd policy of combining bare Facts with logical Reasons. :smile:


*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-ligatures-of-reason-66b775d443d1

Your number 5 reference (just above here) is interesting. Information, the word, seems to have morphed and diverged a huge amount since it's origin.

Common usage now seems to be an abstraction that has no physical basis so I think the original meaning is more true to physicalism. And the ancient philosophers wouldn't have had the word or the current ideas of what information is. I just think it's current usages (the word information) conflict and cause confusion — Mark Nyquist

Yes. That's why I have to provide my own non-dictionary definitions*1, whenever I mention my Information-centric thesis. After the early 20th century, two terms --- "Information: and "Computer" --- radically changed meanings. Before, both referred to flesh & blood humans*2. After, both terms now refer to abstract Data and bloodless Machines.

Terrence Deacon noted that Shannon chose the wrong word to describe the physical nature of his novel notion of Information*3. Unfortunately, the physical term "Entropy" (negation of energy) is misleading. And the more appropriate term "Negentropy" (negation of the negation of Energy) is still confusing. Yet, it relates mental Information with physical energy. And that is the basis of my Enformationism thesis.

However, as Deacon notes below : "information is neither matter nor energy" in a physical sense. Instead, it is an elemental pre-cursor of both, in the philosophical meaning of Creative & Causal Power (Potential ; power to transform Possible into Actual). In a practical evolutionary sense, Information (EnFormAction) is both causal physical Energy and the Matter formed from its creative power : (E=MC^2). But in an Ontological philosophical sense, Information is the meta-physical contents of a Mind. Those who limit Physics to fundamental Materialism cannot grasp the relation between abstract intangible causal potential and concrete tangible actual stuff. They tend to equate natural mental Metaphysics with supernatural spiritual Ghosts. :nerd:

Note --- Aristotle defined "Potential" as the ultimate source of Actual things. Similar to Plato's notion of Ideal "Form" as the source of all Real Things.

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

*2. 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_humanc...

*3. Terrence Deacon on Information :
Deacon introduces a second triad he calls Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin (Claude, Ludwig, and Charles). He describes it on his Web site www. teleodynamics.com . I would rearrange the first two stages to match his homeodynamic-morphodynamic-teleodynamic triad. This would put Boltzmann first (matter and energy in motion, but both conserved, merely transformed by morphodynamics). A second Shannon stage then adds information (Deacon sees clearly that information is neither matter nor energy); for example, knowledge in an organism's "mind" about the external constraints that its actions can influence. . . .
Confusingly, John von Neumann suggested that Shannon use the word entropy for his measure of information. Then Leon Brillouin coined the term negentropy to describe far-from-equilibrium conditions in the world epitomized by information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

Collectively, the US standard of living has increased since the advent of industrialization, urbanization, and representative Democracy. But that general upward trend looks quite different when you break the sample down into classes*1. Historically, societies have been characterized by a tiny minority Upper class (royalty), and a great majority Lower class (slaves & serfs), with a small Middle class in between (merchants). Industrialism temporarily increased the SOL of the Middle class, but Computerization (mechanical slaves) is beginning to reverse that trend, as the Middle class is sliding downward : becoming computer operators instead of mule-drivers*2.

One consequence of that downward trend seems to be : for the Declasse*3 Middle to look for a King-like Tycoon --- with executive immunity --- to restore their semi-exalted status by fiat from above (MAGA), not by economic improvements. The Upper classes benefit by owning the means of production and by increasing the number of mechanical slaves working for the 2% at the tip of the top class. Democratic Capitalism is a feudal economy, with Oligarchs instead of Kings*4*5.

Personally, as the son of a unionized blue-collar worker, my economic status increased due mainly to socialistic GI Bill education. But since the last "great" recession, it has taken a nose-dive. But I'm getting by with help from Democratic Socialism : VA medical care plus Social Security. The American economy is a hybrid of Socialism & Capitalism, with those at the top controlling and reaping the economic largesse. But history has shown that Communism is not the answer for modern nations. So, don't ask me what WE need to do. I'm just an over the hill serf, and nobody cares what I think. :cool:


*1. Upper class increased SOL, Middle & Lower classes decreased :
The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/

*2. LOWER & UPPER CLASSES INCREASE ; MIDDLE CLASS SHRINKS


*3. Déclassé : having fallen in social status.

*4. Does 1% own 90% of wealth?
The accumulation of wealth enables a variety of freedoms, and removes limits on life that one might otherwise face. Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

*5. ECONOMIC CLASS PYRAMID

On my view, there are no purely immaterial things (although I may be able to be pursuaded to see things otherwise). On your view there is. It's a matter of methodological approach. The differences between our two views are so stark that we may not even be talking about the same things despite using the same words.
For example...
When you use the term "mind", what are you referring to such that it does not consist - in part at least - of biological machinery? — creativesoul

As you implied, we seem to have different vocabularies : e.g. materialistic Scientism & wisdom Philosophy. But, I haven't said anything about "purely immaterial things", yet you seem to interpret the word "Mind" as-if it refers to a Soul or Ghost*1. For the record, I have no experience of a Mind without a Body (ghost). Instead, I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning.

You may also interpret my use of Aristotelian "metaphysics" in terms of Catholic "theology". Philosophically, the Brain is physical (objective quantifiable matter + energy), but the Mind is meta-physical (subjective qualitative matterless meaning). That's a philosophical distinction --- Quanta vs Qualia --- going back to Aristotle*1. But you may be influenced by the anti-philosophy notion that "Metaphysics" means "religious beliefs". For me, it merely means "non-physical" or "immaterial" (i.e. mental)*2. Can you see or touch an Idea or a Feeling? If not, that's because it's Meta-physical (read -- non-physical). Philosophers don't study material objects, but they do examine the immaterial functions of material brains.

You won't understand my philosophical language from a scientific perspective. But that doesn't mean it's anti-science. Instead, my thesis returns "Science" to the broader meaning of the ancient Greeks : both Physics and Metaphysics. Both Material and Mental. Both Objective Things and Subjective Ideas about Things. The common denominator is Generic Information. Not the empty meaningless 1s & 0s of Shannon's data-containers (registers), but the intellectual content of communication.

Metaphysical Ideas, feelings & beliefs are indeed immaterial, but they are not "pure", because they are inextricably linked to a material substrate. Just as information processing requires a biological or mechanical computer, meaning-making and self-knowing requires an information-processing organ. But Generic Information is both Biology & Life and Brain & Mind. That statement won't make sense without an understanding of General Metaphysics*4 and Generic Information*5.

For philosophical purposes, I do study Mind as a separate topic from Brain. But I've never seen a Ghost walking around without a Body, or a meaningful Mind functioning without a mechanical Brain. Could you be persuaded to view the Mind/Body problem from a Philosophical perspective? :nerd:


*1. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

*2. Special Metaphysics :
The philosophical science of Metaphysics is essential to my worldview, because, unlike Physics, it allows us to study the immaterial aspects of our reality, such as Qualia (properties) and Ideas (meanings).
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page74.html

*3. Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*4. General Metaphysics :
“General metaphysics, also referred to as Ontology, is the study of being or existence and is in line with Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics. Special Metaphysics, on the other hand was divided into three disciplines; cosmology, rational psychology, and natural theology. While general metaphysics was concerned with being at a broad, fundamental level, special metaphysics addressed more specific questions concerning existence. Topics addressed within special metaphysics included such things as immortality, freedom of the will, and the mind body problem.”
https://academyofideas.com/2013/06/introduction-to-metaphysics/

*5. Generic Information :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. . . . . So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

We're working from very different linguistic frameworks. For one, you're drawing a distinction between minds and the world in such a way that minds are not in the world. On my view, there is no emergence without some physical elemental constituent(s). — creativesoul

Yes, but an emergent immaterial function (Mind) from a mundane material substrate --- after 10B years of lifelessness & 13B years of mindlessness --- is a novel & unique phenomenon in the evolution of the near-infinite cosmos ; hence worthy of philosophical & linguistic distinction. If the phenomenon of Mind was not in & of this mundane world, I would not be here to talk about it. So, the metaphorical "distinction" is between the clay and the sculpture ; not between this world and one of many alternative universes.

Moreover, it's the job of philosophers to study the software, not the hardware or wet-ware ; the cathedral, not the stones or the scaffolding. Hence, my use of language appropriate for a philosophical forum. I'm sure you can find neurology forums that will use the linguistic framework you prefer. :wink:


Understanding complexity in the human brain
The human mind is a complex phenomenon built on the physical scaffolding of the brain
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170818/

If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. So in order to continue to live, it must be able to interact with its environment for sustenance. On another thread, we discussed how Venus fly-catchers and earthworms have rudimentary senses to help them obtain nutrients. Therefore, it's essential for animated matter to be aware (to some degree) of what's going-on around it. That's what senses are for. And the human brain/mind is merely an advanced sensory organ.

Therefore I would guess that "all living things" are at least minimally conscious. But, it's possible that only the more highly-developed (brainy) animals are Self-Conscious. So Consciousness covers a broad range of Knowingness, As to where is the cut-off, your guess is as good as mine. As to why consciousness is rampant on our little ball of earth, and seems to be absent in the other 99.99% of the Cosmos : who's asking, and why? :wink:

That hasn't aged well. The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out. — RogueAI

Not for lack of trying. A current candidate for president of US frequently criticizes past & current attempts to "level the playing field" politically, economically, and lingustically. "Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny." Maybe the candidate prefers proactive tyranny. :cool:


The Tyranny of Political Correctness? :
Claims of so-called reverse racism mainly circulate within closed social media groups
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12690?af=R

"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."
Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998[/quote]
Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, where formerly-favored groups long for a return to the glory-days of a monarchy or autocracy (MAGA).

For example, Mussolini's Fascist Party won election by a landslide in a multi-party democracy. Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny. So yes, history could repeat, even in an economically powerful Democracy with Free Speech laws. Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, when the system becomes unbalanced without loyal opposition. :meh:

Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, — Gnomon
As if all emergence results from a tipping point between an old meaning and a new one. — creativesoul

Not necessarily "all" transformations. The quoted phrase was not referring to the physical Emergence, but to how it appears to the observer. The "tipping-point" trope is about an epistemological event in the mind, not a physical occurrence in the world. I assume that most physical emergences (e.g. phase changes) occur unobserved, unremarked, and unrecorded, hence unsurprising. :smile:

Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed. — creativesoul

Yes, the awareness of physical emergence usually comes as a surprise, due to its suddenness and unexpectedness. The intermediate steps between before & after states of phase change may be masked by "Noise" (chaotic information), giving the appearance of a causal gap. To some observers it may seem to be magical ("presto!"). For example, exponential Cosmic Inflation in 10−33 seconds from nothing to something could be described as a surprising "Phase Transition", or as a "Miracle". :gasp:

Tipping Point in Physics :
In discussions of global change, the term tipping point has been used to describe a variety of phenomena, including the appearance of a positive feedback, reversible phase transitions, phase transitions with hysteresis effects, and bifurcations where the transition is smooth but the future path of the system depends on the noise at a critical point.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705414105

I think an oft missed distinction here is between the idea that "every thing around us is physical" and the broader claim that "all facts can be explained in terms of facts about physical entities." Abstract objects are more of a problem for the second claim. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Everything we know via the five senses is physical. But we know some abstract concepts via the sixth sense of Rational Inference. We typically call sensory knowledge "Facts", and theoretical conclusions "Beliefs". Facts can be proven, but Beliefs can only be argued. :smile:

Note --- Of necessity, philosophers have developed Rules of Argument, which are themselves moot.

...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
On my view emergence makes the most sense when used to refer to a naturally occurring (evolutionary) process that began long before language use emerged. — creativesoul

Emergence is a Holistic concept, that doesn't make sense from a Reductive perspective, such as Physicalism. Hence, it is sometimes dismissed as anti-science, although Emergence is essential to the 21st century sciences of Systems and Complexity. :smile:

Emergence :
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a conceptual phase-change from one logical category to another.

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 being independent from relational aspects, or their pertaining to a whole.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence
Note --- Holistic properties are top-down phenomena that emerge from collective interrelations within an integrated unified System. :smile:

A Test of Emergence :
This chapter illustrates how the concept of emergence has become a great attention grabber due to the striking behaviors demonstrated in artificial life experiments. Emergence has been called upon conveniently whenever the unexpected intrudes into the visual field of the experimenter, consequently requiring or justifying an economy of explanation. This abuse of the term will eventually devalue its significance and put the concept of emergence itself under a bad light.
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/13765/chapter-abstract/167404766?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- Unexpected results may result from erroneous expectations. Physical Emergence happens regardless of your presumptions.

Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. — Gnomon
Seems to me that these concepts transcend the division between subject and object - which you actually posit here:
a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical) — Gnomon — Wayfarer

The concepts & language in Explanation, Idealism, and Design may be way over my head. So, I only read the Abstract. But you may be able to make sense of it.

When I said a sub-atomic particle is both Real and Virtual, I wasn't making a counter-factual or profound statement. It was just an expression of my personal BothAnd philosophy, wherein both material objects and mental concepts are included in my Holistic worldview. I suppose you could say that it "transcends" our conventional divisions between mental & material Reality, as in Brain/Mind categories.

For example, I accept the scientific/mathematical definition of sub-atomic particles as a practical tool for understanding physics. Yet the waveform itself is not a particle, but a metaphorical representation of a particle's mathematical properties. Ironically, if taken literally, Physicalism might omit philosophical metaphors from its definition of Reality. Which is OK by me. I simply put such non-things into the category of "Ideality". Is that a legitimate word? :smile:

PS___ I don't think UFO's are alien spacecraft in Reality, but I accept that the notion of alien visitations is a popular belief in Ideality.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. . . .
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

It's the nature of that existence which is the philosophical conundrum — Wayfarer

Precisely! The enigmas of quantum physics are Ontological, not Physical. Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. They offer material analogies (water waves) to symbolically represent unseen causes of observed effects (wave-like behavior in aether-like empty space).

Some posts in this thread focus on scientific Physicalism beliefs about quantum queerness, and miss the philosophical Metaphysicalism notions about the fundamental nature of Being. Obviously, an objectively observable material form is necessary for Real existence. But beliefs & ideas having no physical form, can only be "observed" by imagination, and possess only Ideal existence.

The worldview of Physicalism (matter + energy) seems to deny the existence & meaning of immaterial Ideas (mind) that don't seem to be either of those types of real things. Perhaps a perspective of BothAnd Meta-physicalism could combine Real & Ideal into a single monistic über-Ontology, where the prefix doesn't mean "Supernatural", but "Beyond" or "Holistic" or "Comprehensive" : more-than the sum. For example, a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical). :smile:


Physicalism, Dualism, and Idealism :
The debate between physicalists, dualists, and idealists is often presented as an ontological one—a debate over what exists. Very roughly, physicalists hold that everything is physical, dualists hold that some things are physical, and some are mental, while idealists hold that everything is mental.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26763/chapter-abstract/195671674?redirectedFrom=fulltext

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They're called virtual particles. — Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments. — jgill

Virtual Particles don't exist physically, but theoretically, as a mathematical definition*1. For such existential mysteries, Aristotle defined "Potential" under the heading of Causation. It's a creative power, not a physical thing. So, if a new thing is observed to "start to exist, for no prior {observable} reason", Aristotle would say that Causal Potential of some unknown etiology, must logically exist in some meta-physical sense, prior to the creative event.

But he would have to admit that the Potential itself is never observable by the senses, but only detectable by rational (if-then) inference from its Actual physical effects. For example, if a book suddenly jumped off a shelf and flew across the room, some would infer that an invisible Ghost had pushed it. Other, more practical minds would look for a more plausible physical explanation. And some, more theoretical, would have to be satisfied with a metaphysical philosophical solution : "X" (unknown -- to be determined).

So, the "spontaneous creation" of a whole functional evolving machine (universe) for "no prior reason" would imply either a> a timeless, but intentional, ghostly Creator ; or b> an un-observable prior pre-space-time chain of cycling self-existent physical universes ; or c> perhaps just some un-observable non-physical timeless Potential for creation of novelty from nothing. The first possibility is traditionally labeled "G*D", the second is typically called "Multiverse", and the third could be categorized as mere un-grounded Philosophical Conjecture. In the absence of plausible a> or b> options though, can we --- like quantum physicists --- be satisfied with an empty definition c> with no known referent? :smile:

*1. Virtual Potential (symbol Ue) where "U" stands for unknown, and "e" for Energy.

Not according to Brian Greene:

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. As an example, take a look at a particularly simple probability wave for a particle, the analog of a gently rolling ocean wave, shown in Figure 4.6. — Wayfarer

This quote raised a strange & confusing possibility in my mind, that may or may not be provable. Greene's illustration of quantum Uncertainty*1 notes that the "particle" being sought is not in any particular place, but "spread out" throughout the universe. In other words, non-local. So, it seems that the fundamental problem is not a mental state (uncertainty) in the mind of the observer, but a Holistic state (eternity) in the really-real world. Ironically, the reductive scientist is looking for a particle where there is nothing particular. This sounds like the drunk looking for his lost keys under a street light, because that's where the light is.*3

From direct sensory experience with the human-scale macro world, we have learned to expect things to be local & particular & changeable. But, when scientists experiment with the quantum foundations of the world, their artificial sensors return the appearance of a non-local & holistic & a-causal BlockWorld*4. In such a world all reasoning would be circular (non-linear). So, which is true : our common-sense ever-changing linear-logic reality, or an eternal state of Potential from which we sample statistical contingencies? What does this possibility say about Physicalism? :smile:


*1. Quantum Uncertainty :
Philosophers of science have long associated the claim that observations or experimental results in science are in some way theory-laden with a logical/epistemological problem regarding the possibility of scientific knowledge: reasoning from theory-laden observations may involve circularity. . . .
Measurement results depend upon assumptions, and some of those assumptions are theoretical in character. . . . . Our analysis shows how the evaluation and deployment of uncertainty evaluation constitutes an in practice solution to a particular form of Duhemian underdetermination[*2] that improves upon Duhem's vague notion of “good sense,” avoids holism, and reconciles theory dependence of measurement with piecemeal hypothesis testing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368120301886
Note --- Theories tend to become beliefs to be verified, or if not provable, to be accepted as ever-pending facts. Accepting quantum Uncertainty as a brute fact of life, allows us to "avoid" the logical conclusion of Holistic (non-reductive) foundation of Reality.

*2. Underdetermination :
In the philosophy of science, underdetermination or the underdetermination of theory by data (sometimes abbreviated UTD) is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

*3. Why quantum mechanics favors adynamical and acausal interpretations such as relational blockworld
We articulate the problems posed by the quantum liar experiment (QLE) for backwards causation interpretations of quantum mechanics, time-symmetric accounts and other dynamically oriented local hidden variable theories. We show that such accounts cannot save locality in the case of QLE . . . . In contrast, we show that QLE poses no problems for our acausal Relational Blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics, which invokes instead adynamical global constraints to explain Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) correlations and QLE. We make the case that the acausal and adynamical perspective is more fundamental and that dynamical entities obeying dynamical laws are emergent features grounded therein.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219808000592
Note --- This source is over my head. But it seems to be arguing that Einstein's hypothetical timeless & changeless & placeless Block Universe may be more real (in some strange sense) than the dynamic particular world that our senses interpret as Reality.

*4. EINSTEIN'S ETERNAL BLOCK WORLD

↪Gnomon
Honestly there are many things about that text's format that bother me, the semi-colon thing was the only one that I saw that would not be justified by stylistic choice. — Lionino

Again, I apologize for not following protocol. I have no formal training in Philosophy, so I'm making-up my formatting as seems best to present my informal science-based arguments. My website would jog your noggin. Please feel free to pass-over any of my posts that might "bother" your sensibilities. :smile:

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. — Philosophim

Actually, should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective.

Consequently, his self-assigned role on this forum is the resident nay-sayer to any supernatural notions. He seldom contributes anything positive to the conversation. Apparently, he views himself as a Socratic gad-fly*2. Ironically. Socrates' disciple, Plato, is the one most often identified with the philosophical concept of a necessary First Cause*3*4. So, more-inclusive philosophers on this forum will be more-open to your exoteric/elliptical . . . . arguments. :smile:


*1.Immanentism :
(ˈimənənˌtɪzəm) noun. the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/immanentism
Note --- I don't know if 180 is a Deist. But I can provisionally agree with this concept. However, a temporary universe, like ours seems to be, must have a beginning and an Eternal Cause.

*2. Gadfly :
A gadfly is a person who interferes with the status quo of a society or community by posing novel, potentially upsetting questions, usually directed at authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)
Note --- Synonym : nuisance. annoyer. pest.

*3. First Cause :
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats.[7] In The Laws (Book X), Plato posited that all movement in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it. In Timaeus, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos. . . . . In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and a deity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

*4. Necessary First Cause for a space-time universe :
For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, as it could not have come from nothing. . . . . Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
Cosmological Argument : This is an argument or proof that is based on Reason. It is an a posteriori argument and by that is meant that it proceeds after considering the existence of the physical universe.

↪Gnomon
There is no space before a semi-colon or a comma. — Lionino

Sorry! Does that extra white space bother you? It's a personal quirk of mine ; to make the transitional conjunction mark stand-out. Another eccentricity is the use of smilies as a message-concluding bullet-period. The smile or frown is an implicit part of the message. Are you OK with that? :smile: :wink:

Right, an informational basis of the universe would seem to hint towards a mind of sorts. — NotAristotle

I agree. But, I am agnostic about any divine characteristics beyond the otherwise unexplained chain of causation in evolution, and the mysterious emergence of immaterial noumenal phemomena (Mind & Consciousness) in an otherwise physical universe. Without a direct introduction, the First Cause may forever remain a philosophical enigma. But without such mysteries, what would we have to chat argue about on this forum? :smile:

The information is basic. Metaphorically. Because what is transformed is the physical into the mental, no? Or is it the physical into the physical? Energy, mind…what do they have in common? Nothing, and that’s the point – one must transform into the other by means of a unity that is the(i)re.. informational content. Information is meaning, but it is also wave functions. A graph of reality? — NotAristotle

Yes. My Enformationism thesis posits that Information/EnFormAction (EFA -- power to transform) is fundamental ; hence is the precursor of Energy, Matter, and Mind. The thesis is an expansion of physicist John A. Wheeler's visionary & controversial concept of "It from Bit" : material things evolve from elementary information. Since he made that connection, scientists have been finding evidence to expand on Einstein's equation of Energy & Mass to include a role for Information*1. My thesis is merely an amateur conjecture, intended only for the purpose of forum discussions about Physics & Metaphysics. I rely on professional scientists to vett the speculations.

We already accept that Energy can transform into Mass (E=MC^2), which is the mathematical measure of Matter. Scientists have also been stumped by the causal gap between initial & final forms of Physical Phase Transitions*2 (e.g. water to ice). So this thesis postulates that physical & biological Evolution is a series of transformations from the First Cause to EFA to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self-Consciousness. "What is transformed" in each instance is Potential into Actual. Hence, all physical & mental forms in the world can be traced back to a single unitary monistic First Cause (???). Some call that Prime Mover "G*D", but in view of the information function, I call it "The Programmer". Below, I have pasted my own Graphs of Reality*3*4. :smile:


*1. A proposed 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. . . .
“The implications of this experimental confirmation are huge, as this would affect all branches of physics, expanding our understanding of the universe, without contradicting or violating any of the existing laws of physics,” said Vopson. ___American Institute of Physics
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

*2. PHASE TRANSITION MYSTERY


*3. GRAPH OF EVOLUTION AS POTENTIAL TO ACTUAL


*4. GRAPH OF INFORMATION EVOLUTION

↪Gnomon
Thanks for your comments. I've had somewhat of a shift in perspective the last couple days. I now think the question you cited --why is this energy conscious -- may not be the most productive. It would be like asking, why are coyotes alive, but rocks are not? The fact is, coyotes are alive and rocks are not. So the answer both for consciousness and living organisms, in my opinion, has to do with the biological history to which both belong. On that understanding, we needn't postulate anything extra or in addition to the physical. — NotAristotle

Are you giving-up on philosophy? Are you no longer interested in "why" questions about Purpose? Will biological histories, speculating into cosmic eons past, satisfy your mild curiosity about impractical questions of "Life, the Universe and Everything"? If that is the case, my proposal for a scientific "how" answer, about mechanisms, may produce too much information for you. But, I don't claim to have THE answer, merely a path to a solution for age-old mysteries of living & thinking matter. Do you know of a settled physical answer to those questions?

This thread is about Mind questions, but Life questions are similar. Life & Mind are observed facts, still waiting for a How or Why explanation. The science of Biology has lots of hypothetical scenarios about how living creatures evolved from non-living matter, but no consensus answer to "how/why is a coyote alive, but rocks are not". Various Abiogenesis*1 theories about warm pools have been postulated, but life-in-a-vat experiments have never produced any living matter. Some modern biologists admit that spontaneous generation of life was disproven long ago by Pasteur. So, they propose stories about Exo-biology, wherein life on Earth was seeded by organisms on crashing comets. But the look-over-there ploy doesn't answer either of the Origin (genesis) questions. To date, there is no empirical evidence of Life emerging from non-life*2. So, instead of trying to answer such vexing questions, most biologists & psychologists today simply take Life & Mind for granted : "it is what it is". Is that what you are recommending? Do you think evading those questions is scientifically or philosophically productive?

This thread raises questions about the scientific history and philosophical status of Consciousness. Physics is focused primarily on Energy & Causation, not Life or Mind. Do you expect physicists to answer those questions "without postulating anything extra"? My Energy-based proposal above suggested an approach that might be able to show how it could conceivably be possible to derive Life & Mind from Energy --- if you take Energy as a given. The only "extra" is the concept of an integrated wholistic state, that is currently being studied under the heading of Systems & Complexity Theories. It also points toward a Why answer to the Purpose of Life & Mind in a mechanical-material world. But I won't get into that on this thread. :smile:


*1. Abiogenesis :
Charles Darwin once theorized that the origin of life — known as abiogenesis — could have happened as precursor compounds came together in "warm little ponds."
https://www.businessinsider.com/life-origin-abiogenesis-warm-pools-darwin-2017-10

*2. How close is science to achieving artificial abiogenesis in the lab?
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a fact that some theory must explain. There was a time when earth had no life, and then a time when there was life. That is a fact disputed by nobody: Something caused life to exist where it had not previously existed. The question that gets so much attention is whether that something must have been supernatural. Typically, “abiogenesis” is the preferred label for any explanation that does not presuppose supernatural causation. There are several under consideration, but none is sufficiently supported to have achieved consensus.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-is-science-to-achieving-artificial-abiogenesis-in-the-lab

Granted that little is known of the brain's mechanics, but the seeming obscurity regarding experiential quality is perhaps not so empirical. . . . One might suspect that its true explanation is not empirical but conceptual. Hence my previous reference to direct realism (the philosophy of perception, recall, not social psychology). — jkop

Sorry, my previous post was based on the definition of "Direct (naive) Realism" in Wikipedia. Apparently, your definition is more like "Indirect (representational) Realism"*1.

Actually, modern neuroscience has amassed a lot of data about the "brain's mechanics", but the gap between neural Mechanics and mental Experience remains enigmatic. So, perhaps you are correct that the solution to the puzzle is not Empirical, but Philosophical. In the last century, we have learned from Quantum science that the foundations of physical reality are not classically mechanical & certain, but statistical & uncertain : hence, Probabilistic. Since probability is somewhat chaotic, it can confuse logical thinking. Which is why Bayesian Statistics*2a was developed, in order to work around the unpredictablity of non-mechanical systems --- including social systems. Bayes' methods begin with predictive Concepts (beliefs) based on incomplete information, then adjust that subjective credence as more objective data becomes available.

The brain is basically an organic machine for making predictions from current evidence. Like a computer, It works with stored memories, and extrapolates past events into the future. But objective neurons have no Beliefs about those prophesies ; that's the function of the subjective Mind. And Beliefs are basically automatic probability assessments. Unlike a mechanical system, the belief system of the mind can be internally contradictory. Which is why a more deliberate & rational adjustment*2b was deemed necessary to upgrade subjective beliefs into more objective assessments of likelihood. That's also why Quantum theory is not directly objectively Empirical, and requires some statistical manipulations to get Closer to "Truth" --- to the "participatory realism" of rational/emotional humans. :smile:


*1. Indirect Realism :
In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

*2. Quantum Bayesianism :
a> In QBism, all quantum states are representations of personal probabilities. This interpretation is distinguished by its use of a subjective Bayesian account of probabilities to understand the quantum mechanical Born rule as a normative addition to good decision-making. . . . .
b> For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

On Participatory Realism :
Physics is about the impersonal laws of nature; the "I" never makes an appearance in it. Since the advent of quantum theory, however, there has always been a nagging pressure to insert a first-person perspective into the heart of physics. In incarnations of lesser or greater strength, one may consider the "Copenhagen" views of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli,the observer-participator view of John Wheeler, the informational interpretation of Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner, the relational interpretation of Carlo Rovelli, and, most radically, the QBism of N. David Mermin, Ruediger Schack, and the present author, as acceding to the pressure. These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. — Gnomon
Direct (naive) realism? Perhaps depending on how we use the words 'code' or 'translation' or 'transition'. In any case it is not the process of seeing that one sees but the objects that emit or reflect visible light. — jkop

No, informed realism*1. I was merely comparing the Hard Problem --- of how the experiential quality of Consciousness could "abruptly" emerge from the physical properties of Energy or Matter --- to a well-known, yet still mysterious, transformation in Physics.

The experience of seeing is indeed a process of translation of light energy into mental imagery. But scientists still can't explain that transformation in physical terms, because Conception is supervenient (metaphysical*2) upon the physics of sense Perception. Yet we can understand it philosophically by analogy to "mysterious" Phase Transitions*3 in physics. The before & after states are well known, but the intermediate steps remain obscure, despite centuries of attempts to construct an empirical explanation. :smile:

*1. Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)

*2. Metaphysical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.
https://www.pbs.org/ . . ./gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The "posited reality" is what I call mental Ideality, not supernatural Spirituality.

*3. Mysterious Phase Transition :
Phase transitions, such as ice melting or turning graphite into diamond under intense pressure, are common phenomena. They are abrupt, qualitative changes in the properties of a substance and usually occur when a physical system approaches a specific critical temperature. Many physicists believe that phase transitions happened in the first moments after the Big Bang, when all matter in the universe was an extremely hot and dense plasma. . . . . The physics of these primordial phase transitions go beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/footprints-of-phase-transitions-in-the-early-universe/

However,there is also such a thing as top-down causation which mitigates against purely physicalist explanations of consciousness. — Wayfarer

FYI, in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, he discusses Emergence and Downward Causation. He explains, "downward causation . . . is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities". He also says, "supervenience is in many respects the defining property of emergence, but also the source of many of its conceptual problems".

One way to think of Supervenience is to note that Emergence follows a series of changes as an unforeseen development, due to statistical Uncertainty (probability), as in Quantum theory. That may be why erroneously assumes that you are denying physical Reality, when you are merely asserting the existence of non-physical Ideality --- as supervenient upon reality --- and noting that --- perhaps due to human intention*1 --- causation can flow both ways. :smile:


*1. Entention : An intention is a mental state in which the agent commits themselves to a course of action.
"The natural sciences must exclude ententional explanations, whereas the so-called special sciences*2 cannot" ___ Deacon, Incomplete Nature
Note --- Philosophy is, in this sense, a Special Science.

*2. Special sciences :
Special sciences are those sciences other than fundamental physics. In this view, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience—indeed, all sciences except fundamental physics—are special sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_sciences

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon. — Wayfarer

As you implied, the key to your differences with is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist". A typical dictionary definition says that "To Exist" means Objective Reality, which seems to exclude Subjective Ideality. Reality is taken to be what the physical senses sense, and implicitly denies what metaphysical Reason infers, often by analogy, not experiment. Yet physical science could not function without inferences of that which is not apparent to the 5 senses, including invisible Energy, known only by deduction from its effects on matter.

I suspect (infer) that Kant coined the term "Noumenon" with such to-be-or-not-to-be debates in mind. The term tries to make Ideas seem like merely a different kind of Phenomenon, which exists in a nonphysical/metaphysical sense. That's also why I have recently been emphasizing the scientific relationship between causal Energy and intentional Mind. But it still sounds like non-sense to some. :smile:

My usual spiel, physicalism (a version of materialism) doesn't really have a good definition anymore, because there's nothing which can sensible be made that physicalism can be opposed to. — Manuel

I suppose you mean that modern Physicalism is more inclusive than ancient Materialism (Atomism). It's intended to include the full-range of modern science : especially chemical substance and dynamic causation ; hence covers the major categories of empirical Science : Chemistry (matter) and Physics (energy), along with their sub-categories : biology, geology, astronomy, etc. So, anything "opposed" to Physicalism would be implicitly classified as Pseudoscience. Yet, the "hard" sciences do omit the "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics. All of which are closer to Philosophical (theoretical) than to Empirical (experimental) methodologies. Are they also pseudosciences?

On a philosophy forum, the Physicalism label is usually contrasted with Idealism or Spiritualism, or Pseudoscience-in-general. The primary distinction is that "Physics" is Natural Science, whereas "Spirit" is Supernatural Superstition. Yet in reality the line between them is blurry. For my own discussions, I prefer dualistic Physicalism to monistic Materialism because it is more inclusive : tangible Matter and invisible Energy. Unfortunately, the physical concept of Energy is also acceptable to modern Paranormalists, Spiritualists and Ghost Hunters, who seek for evidence of their spiritual quarry with technology designed to detect physical energy and spooky forces. Is that what you mean by "doesn't have a good definition anymore"? :smile:


Physicalism :
This includes not only material objects, but also energy, forces, and physical laws. In summary, while materialism asserts that everything is made up of material substance, physicalism goes further to claim that everything can be explained by physical entities and their properties.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-materialism-and-physicalism

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

That is an astute question : why does a particular physical waveform transform into metaphysical (meaningful) awareness? It's easy to imagine that Consciousness is a process caused by some form of Energy. But what specific form (or waveform) causes Awareness instead of Light or Heat or Motion or Gravity? I don't know the answer to that query, but it seems to be a good direction for scientific investigation. One clue to the puzzle of Personal Experience may be that both Consciousness and Energy are special forms of non-specific Generic Information (the power to change form ; to transform ; energy?). And in human experience, Information is also Meaning, Significance, Relevance to Self.

So, if we picture a waveform of Light (for instance), it may function like Morse Code (max-min instead of dot-dash). For a computer analogy, consider the maximum & minimum intensity to be equivalent to a digital code : On & Off, or light & dark, or Positive & Negative, or 1 & 0. With that metaphor in mind, we can imagine that a ray of light is transmitting a message of some kind. If so, then our visual sensing (receiving) apparatus can interpret the quantitative signal as the qualitative experience of Redness. This presumes that evolution equipped the brain with a table of numerical codes & their nominal/symbolic meanings. The physical-to-mental Interpreter is often imagined as a homunculus, but it might be simply a probabilistic computing*1 device with genetic memory*2 trained by eons of evolutionary events (experience?).

Having established Color as one kind of meaning to a Mind, we can carry the metaphor on to greater levels of information complexity, which the brain mechanism can compute-interpret as qualities of experience and properties of the material world. Hence, our senses are like the receiving end of a morse code transmission, and the mental images or impressions are the self-relevant interpretations of that abstract code. The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. I'm just riffing on a philosophical theme here, and will leave the science to those more qualified. :nerd:


*1. Probabilistic Computing :
an emerging discipline integrating probabilistic programming and generative AI into the building blocks of software and hardware, and using computer science concepts to scale up computations involving uncertain knowledge.
https://medium.com/digital-architecture-lab/what-is-probabilistic-computing-and-how-does-it-work-1efea7d780c9


*2. Genetic memory :
In psychology, genetic memory is a theorized phenomenon in which certain kinds of memories could be inherited, being present at birth in the absence of any associated sensory experience, and that such memories could be incorporated into the genome over long spans of time. ___Wikipedia

LIGHT OSCILLATIONS MAX-MIN = ON-OFF = LIGHT-DARK = 100%-0%




LIGHT OSCILLATIONS AS CODE


MIND IS THE TRANSLATOR OF WAVEFORM CODES

My issue again is the assertion that because we can think of a possibility, that this somehow invalidates what we know today. — Philosophim

Coincidentally, the same day you posted that skeptical warning of the perils of un-grounded speculation beyond current evidence, I read in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol 48, issue 1) an article by philosopher Massimo Pigliucci on Pseudoscience. He includes a list of criteria*1 to "demarcate sense from nonsense". The items on that list were written down in Roman orator Cicero's On Divination circa 44BCE, in which he compared Astrology negatively to scientific Astronomy.

In my own speculative thesis, the logical consistency*1a, will have to be judged by others, because we have difficulty seeing the errors in our own reasoning. Since Enformationism is a philosophical conjecture, about a topic with little or no empirical evidence*1b to date, confirmation of the postulation will have to wait for hard Science to catch up with soft Philosophy. The causal mechanisms*1c underlying Consciousness remain mysterious, but the thesis specifically postulates a primordial prototype of modern Energy as the First Cause. The evolutionary process that produced Mind from Matter is not arbitrary*1d, but its intermediate steps are currently unknown, just as material Phase Transitions (states of matter) remain opaque after centuries of study. Moreover, the thesis does rely on a community of experts*1e (e.g. Santa Fe Institute)*2, who are investigating the emergence of Consciousness and Complexity from Holistic physical mechanisms.

Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. So, those more interested in Confirmation Bias may be able to point to my own concept of how Mind emerged from Matter, as confirmation of their personal pseudoscience inclinations. For example, the article mentions Deepak Chopra, who follows similar reasoning to the conclusion of what he calls "Quantum Mysticism"*3. Which Pigliucci thinks is pseudoscience : "there is no such thing". Although, Chopra did not intend to "invalidate what we know today" about Mental phenomena, but to explain such "hard problems" in meaningful modern and traditional philosophical terms. Although his views are Holistic, I don't follow Chopra as an "expert", because he too often goes beyond the metaphorical/mystical point that I am comfortable with.

also classifies my thesis as "mystical woo", even though I make no "spiritual" claims or magical assertions, only philosophical interpretations of physical observations. He seems to think Philosophy began in the 17th century, after the Enlightenment, and trails behind Science picking up crumbs. I repectfully disagree. :smile:


*1. Cicero's Criteria for making sense
a. Internal logical consistency
b. Empirical confirmation
c. Specificity of proposed causal mechanisms
d. Degree of arbitrariness
e. Existence of a qualified community of experts

*2. What does the Santa Fe Institute actually research/study? :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a man named George Cowan, with the help of Murray Gell-Mann who is a Nobel-prize physicist, Phil Anderson, another Nobel-prize physicist, Ken Arrow who won a Nobel prize in economics, and others. These guys all got together and decided to help found this thing, and ‘this thing’ was a new way of doing science… [they] said ‘let’s start looking at ways we can study the whole thing, instead of reducing things.’ And this came right at a moment when personal computers were coming into their own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cormacmccarthy/comments/t5shni/what_does_the_santa_fe_institute_actually/
Note --- 180 associates Holism with New Age woo


*3. Quantum mysticism
Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,[1] is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

I think you would very much enjoy Cosmosapiens by John Hands, he goes over these theories, and a few different ones, other than the Big Bang Model and much, much more. Though not pop-sci, it's not too bad to read at all. — Manuel

Hands finds relevant ideas for a Philosophy of Cosmology in several ancient myths. He doesn't take them literally though, but as metaphorically relevant. A similar look at cosmology is physicist Joel Primack's The View From the Center of the Universe. He also finds some ancient mythical scenarios pertinent to our modern worldview, including those of the magical mystical Kabbalah.

For example, "But today we can see that the Kabbalistic metaphors suggest a reality closer to our modern astrophysical view than Newton's unchanging empty space does". He notes that "mythology . . . is different from theory because it makes "me" part of the story". Then emphasizes, "There is no deeper source of meaning for human beings than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe". After discussing the re-cycling Ouroboros myths, he concludes that it "helps us understand why this physical/spiritual dichotomy is illusory". "By the 'spiritual' we mean the relationship between a conscious mind and the cosmos".

Although we science-informed big-bang-begat moderns tend to imagine the evolving space-time world as analogous to an expanding balloon, most cosmologists insist that it has no geometric center. But Primack says that it does have a meaningful center-of-perspective: the point-of-view of its curious conscious beings perched on the surface of an insignificant rock on the outskirts of a middling galaxy among a panoply of celestial constellations. :smile:

↪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

Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:

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

. 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

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".

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?

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

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.

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

The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. — Philosophim

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.

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:

I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. — Philosophim

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).

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.