For science (and all other empirical studies), transcendental idealism entails that we can only ever claim empirical statements, at best, as valid for possible [perfect—in the sense of the best capabilities and not a perfect representation of reality-in-itself—human] experience. Thusly, science (and the like) are pragmatic for paradigmatic and not ontological purposes. — Bob Ross

Your summary of Transcendental Idealism reminded me of a Quantum pioneer's response to the question whether queer quantum science revealed anything about the Real world. It also sounds like something a modern Buddha might say. Or like the spoon-bending-boy to Neo. :smile:


Quote attributed to Neils Bohr :
When asked ... [about] an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer, 'There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.'

We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness evolved by natural selection.
30%
We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness did not evolve by natural selection
35% — petrichor

The two most popular options in this poll accept that Consciousness (C) is an immaterial causal phenomenon, but differ on how it came to be whatever it is : natural selection or other (divine ensoulment?). One option A> views Sentience as an emergent feature of the gradually developing world, while the other B> seems to assume that it is an otherworldly (unnatural) introduction into an otherwise natural process. So, A> is fairly conventional secular philosophy, while B> is closer to religious theology. Is that a fair assessment?

Both A & B seem to reject the definition of Conscious awareness as an Epiphenomenon*1. Which denies that it is an important primary feature of reality, being instead a useless incidental side effect or illusion. The definition below mentions that C remains, after all these years, a peculiar product of unknown etiology --- not observed, but experienced. So part of the problem with discussing C philosophically, is the mystery of its insubstantial existence in a material world.

Epiphenomenalism dismisses the non-physical connection between Being & Knowing as a minor metaphysical quibble, instead of an important physical phenomenon, such as causal Gravity*2 --- also an immaterial mystery, a century after Einstein's definition of Gravity as, not a physical force but metaphysical Geometry. Is that a fair assessment?

So, what have we learned here? That C is a "hard" problem because is is so empty & incorporeal & ethereal? Or that it falls into the crack between Real & Ideal, between Physics & Metaphysics, between Science & Religion? :smile:


*1. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it. ___Wikipedia

*2. Arrow of Causality and Quantum Gravity :
Causality, rather than the arrow of time, may be a more natural discriminant between the past and the future in quantum theories. ___American Physical Society
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.171601

Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness, though real, and though its form is determined by physical events, has no causal power. It doesn't influence behavior. All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor

No. Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. For example : a motivated physical sperm is obviously alive, but typically shows minimal signs of consciousness : its movement seems to be directed mostly by external forces in the womb, which guide its thrashing toward the uterus, where it accidentally bumps into the oosphere. And its penetration into the egg is controlled primarily by the cell-wall of the ovum. But once the twain have become one, a transformation occurs : motion & control (energy & organization) are combined into a cybernetic organism : input > output > feedback > modified output. Internal & external energy/information are integrated into a teleological system, with a mind/purpose of its own, so to speak.

After that organic system is expelled into the cold cruel world, it becomes an independent operator. At first, the baby is mostly a passive object pushed & pulled by external forces. But it gradually learns to impose its Will, its Purpose, on the outside world. And eventually, that Willpower becomes a goal-directed force-to-be-reckoned-with : e.g. Elon Musk. Few would deny that Musk is a conscious being, and that he has an indomitable Will, focused on whatever mission is currently in his Mind : e.g. rocket to mars. So, the pertinent question here is whether a rocket to mars would happen naturally, or would be the physical expression of a conscious mental map of space-faring humanity, with the ability to escape the effects of its own mis-management of its inherited habitat.

If you think subjective Consciousness is powerless to influence the behavior of other minds, and of mindless matter, don't get between Musk and his mission. :smile:


The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness :
Mental causation is vitally important to the integrated information theory (IIT), which says consciousness exists since it is causally efficacious. . . . . The causal efficacy of consciousness is vital to the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness. IIT opposes eliminativist and illusionist views that deny the ontological existence of consciousness, claiming to the contrary that consciousness is a real feature of the natural world
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517407/

If these symmetries were deductions, then they would be faulty deductions, just like the ancient ideal that the orbits of the planets were perfect circles, therefore eternal circular motions. However, I do not think that such things are deductions. I think that they are mathematical principles or axioms which are not properly applied. So they are handy tools, as you say, but when they are applied where they ought not be applied, they become misleading. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not a physicist or topologist, so I'm not qualified to argue the question of "faulty deduction". Are you?

Symmetry is not very high on my list of philosophical subjects. So, I wonder what difference it makes to you whether such relationships are directly objectively observed or subjectively deduced/induced from other observations. Your strongly-worded opinions --- "faulty" ; "properly" ; "ought not" --- imply that it's a moral/ethical or true/false question for you. Are you suggesting that physical symmetry --- or its "application" to philosophy --- violates some higher rule of reality?

Now that sounds like a philosophical topic. Since symmetries are related to natural laws & physical structure, they may qualify as elements of cosmic ethics : e.g. real vs unreal ; observation vs illusion. Does your worldview imply that physical symmetries not just are, but ought to be one way or another? Does physical symmetry have a philosophical role in the Dualism vs Monism question? :smile:

The role of symmetry in fundamental physics :
Einstein’s great advance in 1905 was to put symmetry first, to regard the symmetry principle as the primary feature of nature that constrains the allowable dynamical laws. . . . Symmetry principles play an important role with respect to the laws of nature. They summarize the regularities of the laws that are independent of the specific dynamics.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.93.25.14256


The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way

Symmetries are observed in nature. — Dfpolis
Symmetries are not observed in nature. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Symmetries are not observed, but deduced. Like constellations in the sky, the inferred patterns are mental, not material ; subjective, not objective. It's good to be aware of that distinction when engaged in metaphysical discussions. Symmetries are, however, handy tools for mathematical analysis of topological transformations. :smile:

Since you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? — Gnomon
No, I'm definitely not rigidly deterministic. I just find that the method you use to reach your conclusion is deeply flawed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm. What "method" was I using to reach the conclusion that Nature is not rigidly deterministic?? Actually, I'm not qualified to derive such a conclusion. I was just accepting the opinions of the scientists referenced in the quotes above below*2*3. I assume their reasoning was some combination of induction & deduction from experimental evidence or theoretical inference. :smile:

Quotes from my last post :

*2. Quantum nature not absolutely deterministic :
The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

*3. Quantum Universe: Fundamentally Probabilistic, Not Deterministic :
Einstein believed that the universe and its laws must be strictly deterministic. He felt that there could be no role for probability or chance, in nature's foundation. This is why Einstein didn't accept or agree with the theory of quantum mechanics.
https://www.wondriumdaily.com/quantum-u ... rministic/

↪Gnomon
:yikes: — Wayfarer

Sorry. I didn't mean to embarrass you with deep-felt praise. But, on this forum, you're my hero. :blush:

↪Gnomon
What is PanMaterialism? I Googled it and found nothing. — kudos

All-matter-all-the time-every-where. I just made-up a name to serve as an analogy with PanPsychism (all mind) or PanTheism (all god). My tongue-in-cheek intention was not to propose a new religion, but to draw attention to the secular "religion of our times"*1. :joke:

Materialism is not a synonym for "science", but an unprovable assumption or belief system or worldview*2. It began as the ancient philosophy/science of Atomism, not as a substitute for pagan religions*3. Even after thousands of years of argumentation, Atomism still has no explanation for such "hard" questions as the emergence of Consciousness in a material world.

Darwin's evolutionary theory did not require any divine intervention, but it did not assert that matter-is-all-there-is, and left open the question of Causation*4. It did however posit a replacement for direct divine intervention with random (statistical) accidents & innate selection criteria (specifications). The all-powerful-matter interpretation was added by those who wanted a secular alternative to Christian Creationism*5. But Materialism has also been used to fill all open & abstract philosophical questions with objective concrete stuff. Unfortunately, it tends to be leaky in the joints around subjective ideas, opinions & feelings. :smile:


*1. Materialism as a Worldview :
John Searle, the eminent professor of philosophy at U.C. Berkeley, once said that "there is a sense in which materialism is the religion of our time." . . . . Perhaps we can see how relevant materialism is to Darwinian evolution. For if materialism is true then something very much like Darwinism must be true. . . . . The explicit materialism of the Darwinians is the mirror image of creationism.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/09/what_is_the_wor/

*2. Definitions of "-ism" :
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. synonyms: doctrine, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ism

*3. Atomism is a metaphysical doctrine that asserts the existence of indivisible material unities that constitute all other material objects. This was suggested by several ancient philosophers and was revived by physicists when they discovered what we now call atoms (though they aren’t indivisible) . . . .
Materialism is a broad term in philosophy which posits that the subject at hand is ‘material’ or physically grounded. This usually takes the form of a metaphysical position on the nature of reality which contrasts with ‘immaterialism’ or ‘idealism’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

*4. Darwin's First Cause :
On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

*5. Materialism in academia is a fundamentalist belief system :
Materialism is the worldview that the only thing that exists is matter. Everything is matter. Not just tea cups and horses, but feelings of love and joy, thoughts and emotions, the taste of an apple, the beauty of a sunset. They are all matter.
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/materialism-in-academia-is-a-fundamentalist-belief-system/reading/

It seems like your plan is to beat materialism in kind with a material notion of spirit, a consciousness that is essentially the antiquated form of spirit itself, as the divine inside a divine subject. It is the idea of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of the divine in human form. And this whole thing seems caught in this post-Christian paradigm. In it we are constantly avoiding a notion of spirit while still operating within it.
Or maybe this higher level consciousness rests in empty actuality. — kudos

can speak for himself. In my opinion, he is the wisest poster on this forum, and with the fewest blind-spots.

I don't know where you found the notion of "a material notion of spirit" in his last post. That may be due to a "blind spot" of your own, which interprets everything in the world based on belief in an unproven axiom : PanMaterialism. Which seems caught in a post-Renaissance paradigm. Ironically, 20th century Quantum physics discovered a fundamental inter-connection between Mind and Matter*1. But the role (participation) of an observer's mind was quickly swept under the rug by the dominant class of classical (materialist) physicists.

Way did use the term "substance", but in the Aristotelian sense of Ousia (being ; existence)*2. FWIW, I interpret Wayfarer's use of "substance" as more closely related to Platonic Form (idea ; essence ; design ; concept)*2. Which is abhorrent to Materialists, who denigrate it as a spooky spirit or ghost : a la The Ghost in the Machine. Materialists seem to have a blind spot for the ancient philosophical concept of an immaterial general quality that makes an individual material thing (quanta) what it is.

Bergson's elan vital referred, not to a ghost, but to an organizing principle in nature. Since the Big Bang, Nature seems to have a self-organizing power that Materialists take for granted, but are loathe to give it a name*3. In the biological sciences it is recognized as essential to evolutionary development, but they label it as "spontaneous"*4 (a chain of accidents tending toward complexity & integration?) to imply that an "external stimulus" was not necessary. Similarly, astrophysicists assume, as an unproven axiom, that the Big Bang was a spontaneous or random event without precedence : pop goes the chaos, which evolves into a cosmos. And yet, some scientists --- bothered by the something-from-nothing implication --- have postulated an imaginary "external stimulus" in the form of an eternal material Multiverse. :smile:


*1. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"? :
According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a "participatory universe," Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

*2. What is the difference between substance and essence in Aristotle? :
Essence is what makes a thing that particular thing. In other words, essence is what makes “that chair.” Substance is what makes a thing a general thing. In other words, substance is what makes “a chair.”
https://o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/essence-substance-and-form-81c2b707c0d8

*3. Self-organization, also called spontaneous order in the social sciences, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Note --- Quantum physics is characterized by non-locality. Not divine intervention, but holistic inter-action.

*4. Spontaneous : performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? — Gnomon
Yes, because the transition times can be calculated using the wave model. — Dfpolis

OK. I am duly chastened. I'm guilty of using physical concepts as philosophical metaphors . . . without doing the "calculations". :joke:

But the actual jumps seem to occur almost instantaneously. — Gnomon
No, they do not. They generate the light pulses we call photons, which have a finite duration in order to have a well-defined frequency (because of the uncertainty principle). So, we can tell how long the transitions take. Further, the transitions are much better described as wave phenomena than as particle phenomena. The electrons in each level have a well-defined energy and so a well-defined frequency. — Dfpolis

Did you notice that I qualified "instantaneous" with "almost". We're talking about Planck Time here. I suppose your definition of "instantaneous" is more rigidly rigorous than mine. Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? :joke:


Instantaneous :
The adjective instantaneous means “happening very quickly, in a single moment.”
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/instant-or-instantaneous-what-s-the-difference

The whole idea that coin-flipping is evidence of natural random chance is fundamentally flawed. The production of this random chance type of event is intentionally designed, as are all examples of such random chance generators, so these examples do nothing to support the claim of naturally occurring random chance events. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, but I was using the term "coin-flipping" metaphorically, not literally. Einstein used the similar metaphor of God playing dice, to ridicule the quantum evidence that Nature is inherently indeterminate*1*2. Also, I was not talking about un-natural Random Number Generators. Instead, I was referring to the innate Quantum Indeterminacy that provoked Heisenberg to define his Uncertainty Principle in terms of statistical Probability*3.

Since you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? Newtonian physics was based on the, mathematically convenient, assumption of rigid laws controlling all actions in nature*5. But Quantum Physics demonstrated that Nature is more flexible than that*6. I even use the malleability of Nature as an argument in favor of FreeWill, and against Fate*7, for those who can manipulate the natural system culturally*7. But that's a topic for a different thread. :smile:


*1. Einstein's Determinism :
Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

*2. Does True Randomness Exist? :
Randomness as a fundamental property of nature: Also called True randomness, is when a phenomenon is intrinsically random and not dependent on our knowledge of the phenomenon.
https://medium.com/illumination/does-true-randomness-exist-5d2fc7f413dd

*3. Uncertainty principle :
The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

*4. Statistical Determinism :
According to classical determinism, the laws of nature are all strict rather than statistical, . . .
https://uh.edu/~psaka/sylla/stet.htm

*5. Quantum indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy is often understood as information (or lack of it) whose existence we infer, occurring in individual quantum systems, prior to measurement. Quantum randomness is the statistical manifestation of that indeterminacy, witnessable in results of experiments repeated many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

*6.Bayesian Belief-based Probability :
Bayesian statistics mostly involves conditional probability, . . .
https://statswithr.github.io/book/the-basics-of-bayesian-statistics.html

*7. Randomness :
In ancient history, the concepts of chance and randomness were intertwined with that of fate. . . .Although randomness had often been viewed as an obstacle and a nuisance for many centuries, in the 20th century computer scientists began to realize that the deliberate introduction of randomness into computations can be an effective tool for designing better algorithms. In some cases, such randomized algorithms even outperform the best deterministic methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Some years ago, when Lawrence Krauss published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing those who are well versed in both philosophy and physics were highly critical. They pointed out that his "nothing" was not nothing. Despite the title what he described is a universe from something, — Fooloso4

Yes. I take his potent & creative nothingness argument as supportive of my own interpretation of BB theory : that Causal Energy and Limiting Laws necessarily pre-existed the Bang --- not physically, but Platonically.

Non-empirical Philosophical conjectures, such as Multiverse and Many Worlds, also seem to assume that "something" preceded the beginning of our little space-time bubble. However, they imply that the "something" was simply more-of-the-same in a tower-of-turtles all the way down to an eternal Material Motherlode. Ironically, in our part of the ontic bubble, ever-changing matter seems to be anything but eternal. So, a more likely candidate for everlasting existence may be Platonic Logic or Tegmark's Mathematics. :nerd:

I would never weigh in on the content of empirical assertions by physicists and characterize my opinions as philosophical. I can only claim a philosophical stance when I remain neutral in this regard, that is, when I am careful not to offer any opinion on the veracity of facts generated within physics, and instead focus on the pre-empirical presuppositions grounding the way questions are posed in physics. — Joshs

That sounds like a reasonable philosophical approach to physical controversies. But some TPF posters challenge philosophical conjectures by insisting on verified empirical evidence. However, such hypotheses may presuppose later empirical evidence. For example, bending of light by gravity was a rational conclusion from Einstein's mathematical theory of gravitation, pending future astronomical confirmation.

Besides, "pre-empirical presuppositions" in mathematics are called "axioms" : presumed to be logically true until proven wrong by finding a black swan. Perhaps speculative philosophy has more in common with Platonic mathematics than with Pragmatic physics. :smile:


Axiom :
In formal mathematics an axiom is a formula or schema of formulas that is stipulated as true (and therefore not requiring proof). Axioms are the counterpart in mathematics of suppositions, assumptions, or premises in ordinary syllogistic logic.
https://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/axiom

Well, in math a singularity is roughly where a function goes haywire, but your interpretation is interesting. — jgill

I am familiar with the mathematical definition. But some Futurists have borrowed the term for other applications, such as a technological Singularity where human tech "goes haywire", and may begin to dominate its creators.

As an Originist though, I was referring to the speculative non-mathematical philosophical notion of the Big Bang Singularity, as a creation event, to explain how Space-Time mysteriously emerged from Infinity-Eternity. Yet, a somewhat less inscrutable way to look at the inexplicable emergence of something-from-nothingness is to imagine a more familiar scenario.

For example, picture the Mathematical Singularity as a simple Algorithm, serving as the kernel of a program for creating a Cosmos via computational evolution. Energy/Causation was provided by the teleological Intention (goal, output) of the program, and Matter was defined numerically in the initial setup. In this story, the physical world is the computer which processes simple mathematical (and-or-not) functions into a recursive process of addition, subtraction, and multiplication of bits into bytes and gazillobytes of complex information, and of physical forms.

It's just a conjecture, but I find it interesting as an alternative to other pre-bang fantasies, such as Many Worlds, and Multiverses. :smile:

Where was matter before the big bang?
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang

Physical Relationships among Matter, Energy and Information :
The three concepts – matter, energy and information – are related through scientific laws. Matter and energy relations are more thoroughly understood than relations involving information. At the level of data or signal “difference” is suggested as a more elementary term than “information.”
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/d/257/files/2016/11/2007.SRBS_.MEI_.2col-2brsfmf.pdf

Philosophy as physics without the maths. — Banno

On an opinion-swapping Philosophy Forum, when amateur philosophers pretend to pontificate on material Physics, they are doing Science without the Matter, and Math without the Numbers. :nerd:

"Appears to be a natural fact", doesn't get us anywhere. it always appeared to be a natural fact, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that "uncertainty" is a property of the subject, not the object. And, it is always caused by the subject's mode of understanding not being properly suited to the reality of the object which it is attempting to apprehend. It makes no sense to blame the object here, therefore the subject's mode of understanding needs to be scrutinized. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that our subjective "mode of understanding" is suspect, but in the expression "natural fact", I was referring to the scientific evidence that Nature is inherently statistical (random chance) in its fundamental behaviors*1. Some might interpret the statistical nature of waveforms as a sign that coin-flipping Luck is a feature of natural processes. Hence, a smidgen of doubt smudged the surety of classical physics.

But another way to look at it, is to see that the indeterminate structure of quantum nature provides degrees of freedom*2 for the creative non-linear development of evolution. Quantum nature has been proven to be probabilistic (uncertain) instead of deterministic (certain). Einstein objected that his Spinozan nature-god didn't play dice. But Heisenberg's quantum-nature-god begged to differ. And Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

So nobody is "blaming the object" ; merely accepting that statistical probabilistic uncertainty is inherent intrinsic immanent in physical Nature. So, if we are going to blame anybody, pin the puzzlement on Newton, who defined physics in no uncertain terms*4. Or on Heisenberg who pulled-up the rug to reveal the squishy dicey foundations of physics. :smile:



*1. What Is Statistical Significance? :
“Statistical significance helps quantify whether a result is likely due to chance or to some factor of interest,” says Redman. When a finding is significant, it simply means you can feel confident that’s it real, not that you just got lucky (or unlucky) in choosing the sample.
https://hbr.org/2016/02/a-refresher-on-statistical-significance
Note --- Heisenberg defined the lack of confidence in quantum interpretations as Uncertainty on the part of the observer. But the source of that feeling in the observer is the unpredictability of the object being observed.

*2. Quantum nature not absolutely deterministic :
The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

*3. Quantum Universe: Fundamentally Probabilistic, Not Deterministic :
Einstein believed that the universe and its laws must be strictly deterministic. He felt that there could be no role for probability or chance, in nature's foundation. This is why Einstein didn't accept or agree with the theory of quantum mechanics.
https://www.wondriumdaily.com/quantum-universe-fundamentally-probabilistic-not-deterministic/

*4. Determinism vs Probability :
Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian mechanics/physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

More panentheist than pantheist; I think Spinoza understood God to be both immanent to and transcendent of nature, and by that, I mean transcendent of nature as we know it; knowing which is exclusively under the attributes of extensa and cogitans. Spinoza believed those are just the two of God's infinite attributes that we humans can know. Have you read Spinoza's Ethics? — Janus

No, I haven't read any of Spinoza's writings. Most of what I know comes from books and articles about his life & philosophy. And the general impression I got was that his deus sive natura description was intended to avoid attributing any transcendent or super-natural characteristics to his nature-god, hence Pantheism or more accurately PanDeism.

But centuries later, we now have a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the natural world, including scientific evidence that our physical cosmos is not eternal, but had a sudden, something-from-nothing beginning, not in Time, but of Time. So, with that additional information, I have developed a PanEnDeistic worldview, that postulates some kind of Causal Power and Logical Laws that existed before the Big Bang beginning of our little bubble of space-time.

Beyond that logical implication, I know nothing of the interpolated deus super natura, that Plato called First Cause, and Aristotle labelled Prime Mover. So, it's just a philosophical conjecture, not the kind of god that would require human worship or sacrifice. I think even Einstein would have approved, once he became adapted to the then-emerging notion of an expanding physical universe, gradually evolving from a mathematically defined creation event. His next question would be : "what caused the bang?" :smile:

Not of my devising. It’s really just an implication of Chalmer’s ‘facing up to the problem of consciousness’. — Wayfarer

OK. But I like your phrasing of the "problem of Consciousness" (psychology) in terms of the problem of Being (ontology) and Becoming (evolution).

First BE (physical instantiation), then Become (animation), then Know (perception), then know-that-you-Know (conception), then study how you know (reduction), then argue incessantly about why you think you Know what's possible-but-not-actual (erudition). :smile:

PS___ That last parenthetical term was supposed to be "philosophy", but I was looking for a word that ended in "---tion". :joke:

So where is the singularity? When is the singularity? If it is not in any specific location nor at any specific time, how can we say it "precedes" the big bang or "began" the universe. In what dimension would the singularity exist. Does it still exist? — Benj96

You are noting the limitations of materialistic traditional conventional language, for expressing immaterial novel unconventional conjectures of philosophy. In materialistic physics, everything is immanent, in time, in space. But in speculative philosophy, our minds are free to explore transcendent dimensions, such as the "time before Time". :smile:

PS___The speculative mathematics of String Theory found 10 or 11 dimensions to be necessary for their numbers to add-up. As ideal figments of Logic, it didn't matter "when" or "where" those dimensions were located in the "real" world. When & where does Mathematics exist?
PPS___For my own musings, I imagine the Singularity (associated with Big Bang) not as a space-time object, but as the mathematical definition (e.g. program) of a Potential (not yet actual) universe. This is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific theory. It "still exists", as a general concept, whenever someone thinks of the Source or Cause of the Cosmic Bang that created the space-time we know and love.

I suggest that the 'subjective essence of experience' is one of the connotations of the term 'being' when used as a noun - that 'a being' is precisely the kind of entity that possesses the element of subjectivity, even if in rudimentary form. This is the point at which qualities of being a.k.a qualia start to become manifest. — Wayfarer

Wow! That is a deep philosophical insight. But, like all philosophical intuitions, it may not convince those who require physical evidence. Could subjectivity be evolutionarily associated with some physical development, like Broca's bit of brain? Seriously, I'm just kidding. :joke:

Although he spoke of nature gods, they were more like Spinoza's deus sive natura than the anthro-morphic gods of Greece*2. That's why I interpret Metaphysics in terms of abstract philosophical concepts*3 instead of socio-cultural religious precepts* — Gnomon
I don't agree with your first sentence; I don't see Spinoza as an animist or a pantheist. And I don't know what your second sentence is attempting to say; surely metaphysics is to be found both in philosophy and in religion, no? Are you just saying that you personally prefer to focus on the philosophical context of metaphysical ideas rather than the religious context? — Janus

If not Pantheism, how would you describe Spinoza's concept of "deus sive natura"*1, which equates Nature with god-like creative powers? I agree that Spinoza's notion of an animating power in nature is far more sophisticated than primitive "attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena". But my reference to Aristotle & Spinoza was intended to make a distinction between philosophical Meta-physics and dogmatic Religion*2. Meta-Physics, with a hyphen, is about Mind, while Catholic metaphysics is about Soul.

That religious association came almost a millenium later, when Catholic theologians looked to Aristotle as an authority on both Natural science and the Cultural science we now know as Philosophy. Because their Bible had little to say about those abstract topics. As I interpret his works, Aristotle's Metaphysics was philosophical, not religious*3.

But several posters on this forum seem to prejudicially equate them, and denigrate speculative Philosophy of Mind in deference to empirical Science of Matter. Hence, I use Meta-Physics in reference to immaterial abstract subjective philosophical topics --- such as this thread --- by contrast to the material concrete objects of scientific study. So, my "personal preference" is to dissociate Catholic Metaphysics from Aristotle's Meta-Physics*4. :smile:


*1. Deus sive natura :
The slogan of Spinoza's pantheism : the view that god and nature are interchangeable, or that there is no distinction between the creator and the creation.
https://www.oxfordreference.com › display › authorit...

*2. Deus Sive Natura :
The first point is that in the Aristotelian conception, nature is in no way a transcendent notion . . .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751565

*3. Philosophy vs Religion :
Philosophy is the most critical and comprehensive thought process developed by human beings. It is quite different from religion in that where Philosophy is both critical and comprehensive, Religion is comprehensive but not necessarily critical.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/Philosophy_of_Religion.htm

*4. 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

The first thing I need to correct you on, is that energy is not measured it is calculated. Measurements are made, a formula is applied, and the quantity of energy is determined. Because of this, it is not accurate to talk about energy as a substance, it is actually a property, as a predication. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with your conclusion, but I'll stipulate that Energy is "measured" in terms of consumption, not substance. :nerd:

Since a quantity of energy is calculated through a formula, and uncertainty arises from application of the formula, this suggests that the formula being applied is in some way deficient, and this is the cause of the appearance of uncertainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

The quantum pioneers considered the possibility that their calculations were somehow "deficient", but the "uncertainty" remains a century later. In fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation is based on that admission of the inherent "limitation" due to the statistical nature of the non-particular wave-function. So, the "appearance" of subatomic (i.e. fundamental) Uncertainty and Unpredictability appears to be a natural fact. :cool:


Uncertainty principle :
It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Copenhagen Interpretation :
The Copenhagen interpretation refers to concepts such as Bohr complementarity and the correspondence principle, Born statistical interpretation of the wave function, and nondeterminism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/copenhagen-interpretation

Due to the "spooky action at a distance" that annoyed Einstein, sub-atomic physics defies common sense. But pragmatic physicists gradually learned to accept that Nature did not necessarily play by our man-made rules. — Gnomon
This is especially the case when the "man-made rules" are not well crafted. . . . . Strong evidence that the formulas being applied are deficient. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you aware of some better-crafted or non-man-made rules that will make the non-mechanical quantum actions less spooky? Do you know of alternative formulas that are more efficient? :smile:

Are Wisdom and Virtue physical or metaphysical concepts? — Gnomon
It depends on what you mean by wisdom and virtue. Aristotle spoke of phronesis usually translated as 'practical wisdom'. Wisdom and virtue can be understood to be pragmatic virtues. — Janus

That's true, but I was not asking about the practical application of those philosophical principles. My question was about how Aristotle would categorize those topics. Would he include them in the Physics section of his books, or in the section that later came to be known as The Metaphysics*1.

Ari covered both under the general title of Nature (phusis), but he covered what we would now call "Natural Phenomena" in the first books, and what we might call "Human Nature" (Reason, Essence, Noumena) in a separate book from his discussions of non-human Nature. Today, we pay little attention to his primitive-but-practical encyclopedia on the physical world. Yet, 2500 years later, we continue to argue about the immaterial philosophical concepts that he defined so succinctly.

Although he spoke of nature gods, they were more like Spinoza's deus sive natura than the anthro-morphic gods of Greece*2. That's why I interpret Metaphysics in terms of abstract philosophical concepts*3 instead of socio-cultural religious precepts*4. For similar reasons, I make a fundamental distinction between pragmatic technological Natural Science and theoretical intellectual Human Philosophy. When we discuss Universal Principles, such as Dualism vs Monism, on this forum, we are not doing Science, and we don't play by the physical rules of non-human nature. :smile:


*1. Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Many of the issues Aristotle deals with—such as existence, essence, individuation, identity, Universals, . . . . . just to mention a few—are certainly issues that we would comfortably describe as metaphysical
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0278.xml

*2. Aristotle on Religion :
Aristotle is a severe critic of traditional religion, believing it to be false, yet he also holds that traditional religion and its institutions are necessary . . . .
https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/philosophy/classical-philosophy/aristotle-religion?format=HB&isbn=9781108415255

*3. Concept : an abstract idea. It is understood to be a fundamental building block underlying principles, thoughts and beliefs

*4. Precept : a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought.

↪Gnomon
I was referring to ancient philosophical "schools" such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, the Cynics, and Neoplatonism and also Eastern teachings such as Buddhism, Vedanta and Daoism that were more concerned with theory as an aid to practice than as an end in itself.
For example, remember that the Buddha cautioned against metaphysical views. — Janus

Yes, but Plato and Aristotle also taught "philosophical schools", and they included both physical and metaphysical topics, with the end in mind of training young Athenians to become wise and virtuous citizens. Are Wisdom and Virtue physical or metaphysical concepts? Ironically, even the Buddha taught that the ultimate goal of his philosophy was the attainment of metaphysical Nirvana.

I was merely trying to point out that the "point" of Philosophy and of Science are proximately different, but ultimately compatible : what's "good" for humans in a complex and dangerous world, with both physical and metaphysical Goods. :smile:

Hadot's point, as I understand it, is that the older kind of philosophy, which was not about argumentation and asserting anything, has been lost. I don't know if that's true; there may be practicing Stoics, Neoplatonists and Epicureans for all I know. To repeat, the point of such philosophies is about practice and not about proving any metaphysical theory. I'm not saying they have no value; obviously they have value to those who want to practice them. — Janus

I assume that the "older kind of philosophy" referred to those like Aristotle, who wrote the book on factual Physics. But even he wrote a book on speculative Metaphysics. Today, modern Science is dedicated to understanding material Reality, and disdains philosophical attempts to understand mental Ideality. Even the "soft" science of Psychology is based primarily on an empirical model, and eschews theoretical models. Except in cases where the mechanical models don't work : the neural-net model is a dead-end*1. In which case, Mathematical models like IIT, or Information models, are used to go beyond mechanics to understand the mind philosophically as a whole system.

A common answer to the question : "what is the point of philosophy"*2*3 is "to find the truth". Hence, the Greeks posited Universal Principles, which are in practice unverifiable, but are in principle provable, just as mathematical theorems can be proven to be consistent with Logic. Mathematical "truths" (e.g statistical probabilities) cannot be empirically confirmed, but scientists typically accept them as authoritative. Since physical experiments are always limited to a narrow selection of instances, the universal application of mathematics serves to generalize their subjective interpretations of empirical observations. Generalizing is the point of Philosophy ; what it does.

Your practical definition of "the point" of speculative Philosophy sounds more applicable to pragmatic Science. Philosophy seeks What's Logical (math ; meaning : values), while Science seeks What Works (instrumental). Newton's mechanical physics (transfer of force by contact) was workable, in the sense that it opened up a new path for the Industrial Age. But Bohr's non-mechanical physics (spooky action at a distance) opened-up a path to the Information Age. Computers are useful tools, even though they have no gears transmitting force from cog to cog. Instead, it transmits ideas from mind to mind, by means of immaterial bits chaining together only by logical relationships (math). Therefore, modern seekers can take a hint from Aristotle, who followed his Physics, with a separate addendum on Metaphysics*4. :nerd:



*1.A. Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical Science :
Their provocative conclusion? The mind is indeed more than the brain.
https://www.amazon.com/Minding-Brain-Information-Empirical-Science/dp/163712029X
*1.B. Contemporary Artificial Neural networks are a (very profitable) dead end.
The dead end in neural network research . . . .
https://floriandietz.me/neural_networks_dead_end/

*2. What Is Philosophy's Point? :
What is philosophy? What is its purpose? Its point? The traditional answer is that philosophy seeks truth. But several prominent scientists, notably Stephen Hawking, have contended that philosophy has no point, because science, a far more competent truth-seeking method, has rendered it obsolete.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-is-philosophys-point-part-1-hint-its-not-discovering-truth/
Note --- The practical Facts of Science are only "true" in specific physical contexts. But the Truths of Philosophy are universally applicable to general metaphysical (immaterial) contexts. Science has eminent domain for practical "How" questions. But Philosophy is the go-to method for speculative "Why" questions. So their authority is limited to "non-overlapping magisteria".*4

*3. What's the point of Philosophy? :
Philosophy is about finding truth. It deals in absolutes. Science deals in probabilities, tentative speculation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3dybao/whats_the_point_of_philosophy/

*4. Science versus Philosophy :
Premise of Gould's position is NOMA: Non-Overlapping Magisteria (domains). Conflict between science and religion is FALSE - science covers empirical realm (what the universe is made of, or fact) while religion extends over the ultimate meaning and moral value of life.
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/sac/examples/gould.html
Note --- In the context of this thread, "religion" is applied philosophy, which uses universal truths to control minds by means of beliefs. By contrast, Stoicism assumed a universal law (Zeus) immanent in Nature, and applied that belief to personal questions, such as "how ought one to live". And it taught self-control to independent-minded persons, requiring no political institutions or organizations to rule the minds of men by Faith. Was it a Religion, or a Philosophy?
Note 2 --- See Science is not "The Pursuit of Truth" https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14720/science-is-not-the-pursuit-of-truth

I don't think this concept of nothingness works, because it renders what you call the quantum leap as unintelligible, impossible to understand. It may be the case that it actually is unintelligible, that is a real possibility, but we ought not take that as a starting premise. We need to start with theassumption that the medium is intelligible, then we'll be inspired to try to understand it, and only after exhausting all possible intelligible options should we conclude unintelligibility, nothingness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum leaps seem to be inherent in the foundations of the physical world, as revealed by 20th century sub-atomic physics. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton assumed that physical processes are continuous, but the defining property of Quantum Physics is discontinuity. When measured down to the finest details, Energy was found to be, not an unbroken fluid substance, but could only be measured in terms of isolated packets, that came to be called "quanta"*1. Yet, on the human scale, the brain merges the graininess of Nature into a smooth image. There's nothing spooky about that. If you put your face up close to your computer screen, you will see a bunch of individual pixels. But as you move away, those tiny blocks of light merge into recognizable images.

So yes, until the early twentieth century, scientists had always "assumed" the material "medium" they were studying would be "intelligible" --- no philosophical speculation required. But the quantum pioneers --- using technological extensions of their senses --- began to "put their faces up close" to material objects. And they were perplexed by the non-mechanical nature of the microcosm of the material world. Bohr, Planck, etc found the observed quanta & quantum leaps to be "unintelligible", and characterized by inherent Relativity & Uncertainty*2.

This nonsense flew into the face of their traditional authority on Physics : the commonsensical, deterministic, and absolute concepts of Newtonian mechanics. Ironically, in their efforts to understand what they were seeing, they reintroduced previously banished Philosophy into the laboratory*3. Subsequently, Science experienced a split --- Practical vs Theoretical --- similar to the Protestant rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church. In this case, the Authority was Newton. Even today, philosophers tend to take sides : favoring either Classical Determinism & Materialism or Quantum Superdeterminism*4 & Idealism. Yet on the whole, reality may actually be a confusing admixture, similar to oil & water, that combine to form a smooth cream.

Due to the "spooky action at a distance" that annoyed Einstein, sub-atomic physics defies common sense. But pragmatic physicists gradually learned to accept that Nature did not necessarily play by our man-made rules. So, unlike impractical philosophers, they decided to "just shut-up and calculate". Consequently, post-quantum physics became mostly theoretical and mathematical, and little one-man labs were replaced by billion-dollar cyclotrons with thousands of mathematicians attempting to interpret the cryptic evidence produced by smashing particles together in intentional traffic accidents. {see image below}

Regarding, "exhausting all possible intelligible options", I recommend the book summarizing Werner Heisenberg's Nobel addresses : Physics and Philosophy, The Revolution in Modern Science. There, he reviews many of the alternative interpretations that quantum pioneers sifted through in their attempts to make sub-atomic reality "intelligible". :smile:


*1. Quanta : a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Oxford

*2. That Old Quantum Theory :
Einstein's two theories of relativity have shown us that when things move very fast or when objects get massive, the universe exhibits very strange properties. The same is also true of the microscopic world of quantum interactions. The deeper we delve into the macrocosm and the microcosm, the further we get away from the things that make sense to us in our everyday world.
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/space/universe/theories-of-the-universe-that-old-quantum-theory

*3. Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science :
Quantum Philosophy is a profound work of contemporary science and philosophy and an eloquent history of the long struggle to understand the nature of the world ...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n407

*4. Superdeterminism :
Quantum mechanics is perfectly comprehensible. It’s just that physicists abandoned the only way to make sense of it half a century ago.
https://nautil.us/how-to-make-sense-of-quantum-physics-237736/
Note --- This approach to quantum weirdness is essentially holistic, in the sense that everything is entangled with everything else. The parts are quantized, but the whole system (e.g. Cosmos) is integrated and interactive, functioning as a unity.

IS THIS PIECE OF REALITY INTELLIGIBLE ?
Strange pattern found inside world’s largest atom smasher

As soon as discussion turns to the qualitative dimension, the domain of values, then the response is 'Ah! You're talking religion.' — Wayfarer

That's a succinct way to describe the general slant (tendency) of this forum toward Physics (quanta), and away from Metaphysics (qualia). Originally, Philosophy studied both aspects of reality (mind & matter), but since the Renaissance secular split, philosophers have been forced to distinguish their observations from religious dogma, by providing empirical evidence. Ironically, Relativity and Quantum physics seem to have re-introduced Subjectivity (observer's framing perspective & qualitative prejudices) into Science and Philosophy. :smile:

The obvious issue here is that we do not understand the medium (substance or aether) within which the waves are active. We know that waves are an activity of a substance, but we do not know the substance which these waves are an activity of. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ancient Greek concept of a Quintessence, Fifth Element, or Aether to serve as space-filling medium for physical processes, such as light propagation, has been raised and discarded several times over the centuries. Newton postulated a Luminiferous Ether ; others imagined a Gravitational Ether ; Einstein used the term "ether" as more of a metaphor than a material substance ; but Dirac described the quantum vacuum (zero-point energy) as ether-like ; and deBroglie imagined Pilot Waves in a "hidden medium" to serve as a universal reference frame. So, the metaphysical notion of Nothingness (Vacuum : Gk -- emptiness) has always been difficult to reconcile with our physical sciences.

Consequently, I have wondered if we could take Nothingness seriously, and eliminate the perceived necessity for a mysterious ethereal substance. Take a typical atom for example, and watch as an electron (point particle) jumps up, and then back down, between energy levels (orbits). This up & down -- maximum to minimum -- action produces waveforms on an oscilloscope. But the actual jumps seem to occur almost instantaneously. So, what if we imagine them as quantum leaps without passing through the space (nothingness) in between. In that case, the pattern would look more like a series of dots than a sine wave curve. {see image below}

In this scenario, with no medium except nothingness, the path of propagation would be a series of measured isolated dots with no curved line connecting them. So, what we would perceive (or measure) is on/off or max/min blinks/winks/twinks over time, but nothing in-between. This would eliminate the inferred interpolation*1, and the unbroken graphic curve. What's left is just instantaneous oscillations (vibrations) of energy from min to max, with no energy in the interval*2 : zero energy, zero momentum, zero particle, no continuity, just blips in nothingness over time.

Is it possible that this is actually what we perceive, and the continuous curve is an interpolation by the brain to make sense, in view of our commonsense concept of time as continuous*3? Hence, the Ether is inserted into our models as a place holder (medium) for the empty space between ticks of discrete Time. We can count discrete elements, but we can only imagine continuity*4. Maybe that Medium is "hidden" because it is metaphysical instead of physical : Ideal instead of Real. :smile:


*1. Interpolation : the insertion of something of a different nature into something else.

*2. Do particles with exactly zero energy exist? :
The complete absence of energy is only possible for a massless particle of zero momentum.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193996/do-particles-with-exactly-zero-energy-exist

*3. Is time discrete or continuous and why? :
Although time is theoretically continuous, and many mathematical models (like geometric distribution) model continuous time, in an empirical setting, events or states are measured at selected points in time. Because of this measurement structure, we often have to use discrete time models.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/218426/when-is-time-treated-as-a-discrete-variable

*4. Philosophical Continuity :
The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/priniciple-of-continuity


SINE WAVE : red dots = On - Off - On ; blue curve is imaginary interpolation


ELECTRON JUMPS between energy levels

So, how do thought and matter interact? They don't -- because the question is ill-formed. What we have is being, with different beings having different capabilities. — Dfpolis

Is that negation based on a distinction between Real Things and Ideal Beings?

In a previous reply, you called Descartes' dual categories "non-sensical because reality cannot be divided into res extensa and res cogitans". Yet, you say that "thought and matter" have different (dual?) "capabilities". If "capability" is taken to mean the ability to affect other "beings", how would you characterize that innate power? Extensa is a 3D spatial quantity, while Cogitans is a non-space-time quality; perhaps more like a capability? Extended Matter interacts with other things via exchanges of Energy. Do you think that Thinking Beings interact via Intention? If so, is Intention analogous to Energy in that it has effects on other minds?

The OP is titled Dualism and Interactionism. If you defined the latter term above, I missed it. So I Googled, and found that it is defined in terms of "Dualism" and "Causation"*1. Apparently, your objection to the Dualistic (proximate appearance) aspect is based on a Monistic (ultimate Ideality) worldview, in which Mind & Matter can be traced back to some primordial Origin, with the potential for both Material things and Mental beings. Is that summary anywhere close to your understanding?

If so, I can agree, although I typically use different terminology, drawn partly from sub-atomic Physics , Information theory, modern Cosmology, and ancient Philosophy. In my thesis, the Ultimate Origin (First Cause) is neither Mind nor Matter, but the Potential for evolving a plethora of material Things & living Creatures & Thinking Beings in the Real world. And I use physical Energy as a metaphor for the "interactions" between those offspring of Plato's hypothetical ideal FORM*2 (configuration ; manifestation ; design), and Aristotle's original Prime Mover (causation ; creation).

From those different aspects of Monistic Potential, I can trace Cosmology from an initial Bang of omnidirectional Causation, which transformed into the dual aspects of Energy & Matter, and thence into the manifold Darwinian "forms most beautiful". Some of those sub-forms have material Properties and some have immaterial Qualities, such as Life & Mind. Does any of that conjecture make sense from your non-dual perspective? :smile:


*1. Interactionism (philosophy of mind) :
Interactionism or interactionist dualism is the theory in the philosophy of mind which holds that matter and mind are two distinct and independent substances that exert causal effects on one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism_(philosophy_of_mind)

*2. Form :
noun --- Structure : a> the visible shape or configuration of something ; b> a particular way in which a thing exists or appears; a manifestation.
verb --- Creation : a> bring together parts or combine to create (something) : b> make or fashion into a certain shape or form.

Any well-grounded theory of mind has to take that into account. So, we cannot divide extended reality from human mental reality. — Dfpolis

Descartes categorically "divided" Soul from Body ; which in more modern terms might translate to a conceptual distinction between Mind and Brain. So it does seem possible to think of them as two different but inter-related Things. Since we can and do "divide" the world into conceptual categories, from what perspective do you conclude that we "cannot divide" Res Extensa from Res Cogitans?

A Monistic Materialist might assume that ultimately Mind is just a different kind of Matter, so the distinction is artificial, not natural. But philosophers use such artificial analysis as an essential tool of their trade. Or, a Monistic Idealist might make the opposite argument : that Brain is merely a tangible form of ethereal Mind. Yet both feel justified in making conceptual sub-classifications underneath the umbrella of their preferred fundamental substance. Apparently, you have either a different meaning of "divide", or a different Prime Substance, in mind. Please explain. :smile:

It's obvious that Minds are always Embodied ; unless you give credence to invisible intangible ghosts. — Gnomon
No, one need only give credence to logical analysis such as that by which Aristotle established the existence of an immaterial unmoved mover, described as "self-thinking thought." — Dfpolis

I agree that we can reason from sensory evidence (specific things) to non-sensory conclusions (generalizations ; principles). But Aristotle's "Self-Thinker" sounds like a dis-embodied Mind, and for a Materialist, would fall into the same nonsense category with Ghosts and Circular Logic.

Like you, I am not a Materialist, except for commonsense practical purposes. Yet, for philosophical reasons, I accept that all of the Minds in my sensory experience have been associated with meat Brains. However, I can cogitate from other evidence (e.g. Quantum Physics) that Mathematics (e.g. Fields) may be more fundamental than Matter. And Mental Information can be defined in terms of both Math and Logic.

So, the question arises : what is the relationship between Math and Mind? My answer is that both are subvenient (dependent) forms of the universal Power-to-Enform (Energy + Information = EnFormAction). That unconventional notion is not a derivative of pure Idealism, but a conjugation of Idealism & Physicalism. Or, as I like to call it Enformationism. :smile:

PS___ Are you familiar with the Mass-Energy-Information Equivalence postulation in physics?


Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I've learned that hylomorphic dualism offers a different perspective. The soul is not a separate "thing" or "substance" in the way Cartesian dualism conceives it. Instead, it is the form of the body—a principle of organization, a blueprint. The rational element of this soul (nous) is dynamic, intimately involved in the act of knowing. — Wayfarer

That explanation of the relationship between the substantial (res extensa) Body and the insubstantial (res cogitans) Mind (processor of Information) is very close to the reasoning behind my own Enformationism thesis. But, the Dualistic metaphor is only for convenience in communicating about Abstractions in a Materialistic society. A Realistic worldview can have no beginning or end, no preface or denouement ; only a never-ending meaningless in media res.

Ultimately, my thesis is Monistic, in the sense of Plato's hypothetical eternal universal "Form" {as the source of all space-time configurations} or Aristotle's "Prime Mover" {as the First Cause of all subsequent transformations}. Metaphorically, Eternal Form functions like a computer program with universal definitions & instructions (laws governing interactions), which are combined in various ways in the calculations of Evolution. Nature's program produces interim solutions to some (unbeknownst to us mortals) original question. Philosophy is the Quixotic quest for the meaning of this mundane routine.

The hypothetical Program of Evolution is pre-set with "principles of organization" and with the "dynamic" power to reorganize basic Matter into a myriad of unique forms (objects & organisms). This worldview is Monistic though, only if you assume that the physical computer (Cosmos) is running an a priori program that was "designed" by a hypothetical singular Programmer. Since the speculative Enformer exists metaphorically outside the physical computer world, S/he is not a real thing or person in the usual sense, but merely an postulated solution to a perennial philosophical quest for the First Cause.

This worldview does not have to be taken on Faith in some human document. The evidence is the real world of the senses, and the testament is the ideal product of Reason. Unfortunately, the Universal Cause or World Programmer has revealed He/rself only by means of the limited perception and fallible reasoning of meat brains. So, a statistical Bayesian confidence interval is the closest we can come to certainty of opinion about a Principle that is empirically unverifiable. Therefore, we may never completely agree on the name or characteristics of that ultimate Unity. Hence, as Arthur C. Clarke expressed the conundrum : "the nine billion names of God". :smile:

Once we realized that abstractions are not reality, things become easier. There is no reason to think that the laws of mindless matter should apply without modification to thinking beings. — Dfpolis

Yes. Abstractions only exist in the imaginary world of Minds. So, they are Ideal, not Real. And physical laws can only be used as metaphors for metaphysical relationships. :smile:

Most contemporary philosophers of mind employ a Cartesian conceptual space in which reality is (at least potentially) divided into res extensa and res cogitans. Then, they ask: how res cogitans could possibly interact with res extensa? I am suggesting that this approach is nonsensical because reality cannot be divided into res extensa and res cogitans. Clearly, thinking depends on neural processes and neural processes depend on extended stuff. This dependence has been known since Aristotle wrote De Anima. — Dfpolis

I assume that by "non-sensical" you mean : from the perspective of Realism & Materialism. You may be correct, that many-if-not-most posters on TPF identify as materialists or physicalists, to the exclusion of psychological or metaphysical views. But not all.

Atomism/Materialism was an ancient philosophy, that was later confirmed in terms of physical laws in the 17th century. However, some of Newton's assumptions have been called into question by 20th century sub-atomic Science. So now, there are good empirical reasons to doubt*1 the evidence of the physical senses, and to apply the 6th sense of philosophical Reasoning. The "science" I'm referring to is Quantum Physics, not Spiritualism.

Res Cogitans is literally non-sense in the sense that mental phenomena cannot be perceived via the 5 physical senses. But commonsense led ancient thinkers to conclude that Life Functions and Mental Phenomena are not explainable in terms of their material substance. Fictional Dr. Frankenstein injected Life into his creature with a jolt of natural Lightning. But real-world scientists have not been able to cause inert (dead) matter to become a living person by means of electrical Energy. The Miller-Urey experiment, almost a century ago, didn't even come close to creating life from non-life. So, it seems that there is still a missing element or force in the Matter + X = Life or the Matter + Life + X = Mind equations. Moreover, Reality still seems to persist in presenting a dualistic face to life-seekers and mind-finders.

It's obvious that Minds are always Embodied ; unless you give credence to invisible intangible ghosts. But that simple eyeball observation does not explain the emergence of Anima or Noumena from Materia. Cartesian dualism was merely a compromise, intended to allow Science to proceed without interference from Religion*2. A more pertinent observation in the 21st century is that Mind is the Function of physical brains. But, is a Function Res Extensa or Res Cogitans, or something else, perhaps Res Causatio?

I'm not proposing a Triality, but merely that both space-occupying things, and thinking things, might be merely various products of evolutionary Causation. Not just boring linear mechanical causation, but the holistic non-linear Interactionism of quantum entanglement. I won't attempt to explain that conjectural hypothesis in this post. But I've been exploring the multi-faceted roles of Causal Information (e.g. physical Energy or mental Intention) for several years.

That Information-based notion does not displace Materialism for the practical purposes of Science, but it does provide a new way to understand the impractical unrealistic subjects of Philosophical investigations : the immaterial Mind Objects we call "Ideas" and "Concepts". And ultimately, it's a Monistic worldview. :smile:


*1. Uncertainty Principle :
The uncertainty principle presents a philosophical challenge to one of our basic assumptions about the nature of physical objects, namely, that physical variables have precise and definite objective existence.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-have-a-philosophical-interpretation

*2. Descartes's Dualism :
Thus, the concept of metaphysical dualism served to be a compromise between religion and science. Descartes suggested that immaterial substances such as the soul are the locus of free will and it tends to last beyond the death of the physical body and thereby, are immortal.
https://www.studocu.com/en-us/messages/question/2491582/how-does-descartess-dualism-allow-for-a-compromise-between-science-and-religionhow-does

↪Gnomon
In those quotes Bateson speaks of mind at all levels of relational existence, not of consciousness. I know that I am not conscious myself most of the time, if consciousness is defined as something like 'explicit awareness' as distinct from mere (implicit) awareness. That seems like a valid phenomenological distinction to me.

I remember Whitehead defining himself as a "pan-experientialist" rather than a panpsychist, and he also asserts that most experience is not conscious. So, I guess the question is as to whether panpsychism postulates consciousness, as defined above, at all levels. — Janus

I make the same distinction in my Enformationism thesis. Based on my personal understanding of Quantum Physics and Information Theory, I have concluded that Consciousness is emergent, not fundamental. That notion began with physicist John A. Wheeler's postulation that "its" (material things) are derived from "bits" (elements of Information*1). In that essential distinction, Information (the power to enform) is more like Energy than Ideas (E=MC^2).

Also, in physics, Information has been associated with Causal Energy, not with Sentient (experiential) Consciousness. So, I doubt that sub-atomic particles --- which exchange physical Energy --- actually know what is happening to them. Unfortunately, the term "to experience" has ambiguous meanings : A> practical physical interaction, and B> mental metaphysical communication. For an Electron, we call it an exchange of abstract energetic Charge, not of imaginative meaningful Ideas.

Therefore, I infer that Primordial Causation (Plato's First Cause) was not Actual immanent Energy, but Potential relationship*2 Energy . But that's a complex technical topic, not appropriate for a forum post. I imagine that the Actual products of energetic causation range from sub-atomic particles, to human-scale matter, and on up to the most recent developments of Evolution : the emergence of sentient Minds, only a few million years ago. I suppose that primitive Life (e.g. plants & bacteria) is an example of "implicit" awareness, while Animal Life (mammals) is the beginning of "explicit" Consciousness, and human Self-Consciousness is the current apex of Information Evolution. Maybe (speculation), Artificial Intelligence will eventually develop an even higher form of Causal & Conscious Information.

Because I view Consciousness as Emergent, instead of Elemental, I don't agree with the "pan-experiential" form of Pan-Psychism (all mind). Yet, I can agree with a similar notion of Pan-Potential (Platonic Form). If these abbreviated comments are difficult to follow though, I can elaborate in response to specific questions. :smile:



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

*2. Relationship :
Mathematical Ratios (e.g 1/2) or Einsteinian Relativity (comparison of this to that).
Example --- thermal energy is experienced as a statistical ratio such as Hot to Cold : 50% = neutral ; 70% = warm.
Note --- The Bergsonian "difference" is a ratio between two values --- either numerical or meaningful --- which can be expressed as a percentage or a feeling.

If I'm going to be convinced about Bateson's purported panpsychism or deism, I'd want to see quotes from his own work not from some interpreter of it. It's a long time since I read Mind and Nature so even if I don't remember getting the impression that Bateson was panpsychist that might down to my failure to notice it or remember noticing it.
Spinoza is often framed (and I think misinterpreted) as a panpsychist, but he was undoubtedly a deist. — Janus

Here's a link to an article that touches on your distinction between Panpsychism and Deism. It includes quotes from another of Bateson's books.

Deism does postulate some kind of Universal Mind, while Spinoza's Nature God seems to be primarily the source of Causation in the world. The quotes below appear to be making the same distinction, between Causation & Consciousness, that I do in my Information-based thesis : Causation (e.g Energy) is universal & eternal, while Consciousness (Sentient Mind) is a late emergent phenomenon after billions of years of Evolution & Enforming.

Bateson denies that "atomies" are conscious --- as some interpret Panpsychism --- and implies that it's "complex relationships" --- such as the neural networks of a brain --- that generate subjective Consciousness, not the material components themselves. Although, Bateson might accept the notion that Matter --- as embodied energy --- may contain the Potential for Mind (i.e Immanent).

Hylonoism is a technical term, similar to Aristotle's Hylomorphism, referring to a combination of Matter & Mind. It appears to be used primarily by Panpsychists. Again, it seems to imply that Conscious Mind is primary, but I tend to view Creative Causation (i.e. First Cause) as the principal Source of everything in the world : both Mind and Matter.

Fundamental Matter ; Prime Mind ; First Cause ? It's a nit-picky distinction that would be, literally & figuratively, immaterial to those who think of Matter as the fundamental element of Reality. Yet if so, then emergent Consciousness must be immanent in matter --- but in what form? Could it be . . . I don't know . . . maybe . . . incorporeal Energy . . . or EnFormAction : the power to transform? :smile:


Bateson versus Panpsychism :
Still, Bateson does not endorse a full-fledged panpsychism. The only exceptions for him
are the fundamental atomic particles ('atomies').

Quotes from Steps to an Ecology of Mind :
This view is very close in spirit to hylonoism, which sees mind in all interactive
exchanges of energy. I concluded that, therefore, mind must exist in hierarchic form
throughout all levels of being; Bateson reaches the same conclusion:

“we know that within Mind in the widest sense there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of
which we can call an individual mind” (ibid). It is not just ‘universal Mind’, but mind at
all levels of existence – true pluralistic panpsychism". . . .
"It means…that I now localize something which I am calling "Mind"
immanent in the large biological system – the ecosystem. Or, if I draw the
system boundaries at a different level, then mind is immanent in the total
evolution structure". . . .
"The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent
also in pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind
of which the individual mind is only a subsystem. This larger Mind…is still
immanent in the total interconnected social system and planetary ecology." . . . .
"I do not agree with Samuel Butler, Whitehead, or Teilhard de Chardin that it
follows from this mental character of the macroscopic world that the single
atomies must have mental character or potentiality. I see the mental as a
function only of complex relationship.
https://people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_ds_chapter7.pdf

:up: Am done pestering you and offer an apology to Benj96 for any offense. I just can't understand or follow what is being said. — Nils Loc

That's OK. No apology needed. It's just par for the course on TPF. I appreciate your honest & humble efforts. Some posters seem less than sincere in their supercilious snarky retorts.

Many of the philosophically astute posters on this forum are limited by their outdated Classical Newtonian Physics (commonsense) worldview (Materialism). Quantum Physics defies commonsense though, and sounds non-sensical to laymen, who have not taken the time to learn how the sub-atomic foundations of material reality are different from the macro (human-scale) world of the five senses. That limitation is not a problem for 98% of the human population. But those who study Science and Philosophy --- especially Quantum & Information Theory --- would be handicapped by a 17th century understanding of the physical world.

Quantum physics studies the unseen world beneath our animal senses. Apparently, you have to be a little weird to stick your mind into such dark places. :smile:


Quantum Physics is bullshit :
Lawrence Krauss has the best response - "So arguing that it doesn't make sense to you, is . . . . based on the assumption that you know what is sensible in advance. We don't know what is sensible in advance. Until we explore the world around us. Our common sense derives from the fact that we evolved on the savannah in Africa to avoid lions. Not to understand quantum mechanics, for example. As I have often said, common sense deductions might suggest that you cannot be in two places at once. That is crazy. But of course not only can an electron be but it is. It doesn't make sense because we didn't evolve to know about it, we've learned about it. We forced our idea of common sense to change, its called learning."
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2gsqw3/cmv_quantum_physics_is_bullshit/

Quantum mechanics is a physical theory developed in the 1920s to account for the behavior of matter on the atomic scale. It has subsequently been developed into arguably the most empirically successful theory in the history of physics.
https://iep.utm.edu/int-qm/

↪Gnomon
I have to take issue with your link quoted above on one issue. I do not believe Bateson was a determinist, and I certainly do not believe that determinism is one of the necessary presuppositions of the thesis he presents here, because if it had been he would have declared it and made an argument for it. He's a far too careful, and self-aware thinker to have missed it. — unenlightened

Thanks for the info. I also questioned that attribution. But There are several types of Determinism : Hard ; Pre- ; Biological ; Logical ; Causal ; etc. And, I am not an expert on Bateson's philosophy. So, I let it slide. :smile:

That makes sense, he is replacing the Great Chain of Being, with a natural and logical hierarchy as God, archangels and angels have no place in his immanentistic, wholistic vison of nature, of "a sacred unity of the biosphere". — Janus

Yes. That's why the article I linked above referred to his theory as a "reconception of the Great Chain of Being". In the link below, The Information Philosopher discusses mainly Bateson's notions of Cybernetics (feedback systems), Semantics (meaningful patterns), and Holism (integrated systems). He also mentions that "He variously identified this system as Mind or God, a sort of panpsychism. The supreme system he thought was a whole, not divisible into parts".

I'm guessing that his Panpsychism is similar to Spinoza's "deus sive natura". Definitely not referring to the Bible God. Yet, he still views Evolution as a progressive, perhaps teleological, process. His "chain of being" metaphor looks forward to developments in Quantum, Cybernetic Systems (computers), and Information theories, instead of backward to ancient notions of a divinely-ordained order in nature. :smile:


In his 1972 book, Mind and Nature : A Necessary Unity, Bateson defined his panpsychic and monist view :

Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components. (his supreme cybernetic system)

The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference. (messaging depends on differences > information)

Mental process requires collateral energy. (Bateson appreciated free energy, with negative entropy)

Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination. (Bateson was a determinist)

In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (that is, coded versions) of the difference which preceded them. (he describes causal chains)

The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bateson/

Gnomon I agree with most all of this, especially the humility part. I would only clarify that "being in possession of all truth," as Franklin put it, isn’t really the goal here. Philosophers like Habermas and Rehg (and me) who worry about this question are worried about why even the most basic issues in philosophy don’t seem to have agreed-upon stopping places or plateaus of consensus. — J

Unlike the reductive-physical-measurable MATTER of Science, Philosophy is dealing with holistic-metaphysical-unbounded IDEAS. Using a physical/material metaphor, Plato advised philosophers to "carve nature at its joints". Unfortunately, the problems this thread refers to are Cultural, not Natural.

Scientific "facts" are Real & Objective, but Philosophical "truths" are Ideal & Subjective, hence Truth is irrevocably Moot. And, the "plateaus" may only be Logical or Categorical Boundaries, instead of Physical "joints". Hence, the perennial plaint remains unanswered : "what is truth". When two people can agree on what counts as true in a particular case, they may be in possession of enough truth to move on to the next question. :smile:

Vopson's paper here reads like a wacky sci-fi premise, projecting an exponential impossibility. How could information mass replace the normal mass of the Earth because of computers, yet register no measurable change? My question would be, where or how does the mass of this information reside in time and space as a physical entity -- what particles carry it? — Nils Loc

You seem to interpret Vopson's "premise" as a scenario of "weird" massless Information somehow magically transforming into spooky "information mass". I don't read it that way. I think he was saying that information is naturally converted into "normal mass". Presumably in a manner similar to the way massless Photons convert their Potential energy into the measurable mass we call Matter : E=MC^2.

Admittedly, Einstein's equation doesn't make sense in terms of Classical Physics. And he didn't specify the steps between Potential and Actual. All we know is that the math adds up. Which is why his radical new Physics of Relativity --- contra Newton's Absolute Physics--- was grudgingly accepted by physicists.

As to the question of "no measurable change", I suppose the scientists are dealing with the same Measurement Problem*1 of quantum physics. The math deals with Statistical possibilities, not Actual observable facts. Once they figure-out how to create an experimental set-up, the end product could just be weighted on a mass spectrometer ; an indirect measurement.

Please note that some professional physicists*2 are now equating massless Energy, not just with Matter, but with massless mental/mathematical Information. It may be counter-intuitive, but do you really think that scientific/philosophical hypothesis qualifies as "a wacky sci-fi premise". :smile:

PS___ A massless Photon is not a particle of Matter until it slows down and gains weight, so to speak*3. Until then, it's merely a statistical abstraction, and undetectable. Perhaps a massless Bit of Information is also nothing-but mathematical/mental Theory until it gains velocity and mass in weird physics experiments. :joke:


*1. The Measurement Problem :
Standard quantum mechanics accounts for what happens when you measure a quantum system: essentially, the measurement causes the system's multiple possible states to randomly “collapse” into one definite state. But this accounting doesn't define what constitutes a measurement—hence, the measurement problem.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-theorys-measurement-problem-may-be-a-poison-pill-for-objective-reality/

*2. American Institute of Physics :
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. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
About AIP Publishing :
A wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), AIP Publishing’s mission is to advance, promote, and serve the physical sciences for the benefit of humanity by empowering researchers and breaking down barriers to open, equitable research communication. . . . the AIP flagship magazine Physics Today provides high-quality, rigorously peer-reviewed research and insights across the physical sciences,
Note --- A less trivializing meaning of "conjecture" is hypothesis : Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or observation,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389200/

*3. Why Are Photons Considered Particles? :
It is these units of excitations of the electromagnetic field that we call photons. Like other quantum particles, they are not really “particles” like miniature cannonballs. Rather, they represent the smallest indivisible unit of interaction with the field.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/14/why-are-photons-considered-particles/?sh=5ae747e62946

On another note, do you agree with Gnomon that Bateson's' thought "seems to assume a "Great Chain of Being" ontology"? I'm not seeing it, but then Gnomon didn't explain why he thinks that. — Janus

I got that impression from reading Mind and Nature many years ago. He interpreted Evolution as a directional progression, generally from simplicity (elements) to complexity (organisms). Criticism of that ancient notion is primarily concerned with the implication of a natural hierarchy, with humans at the top of the animal kingdom, and white humans at the top of a racial hierarchy. I don't know if Bateson was a racist, but I doubt that race was a primary concern. :smile:

Bateson's Process Ontology :
The work of Gregory Bateson offers a metaphysical basis for a “process psychology,” that is, a view of psychological practice and research guided by an ontology of becoming—identifying change, difference, and relationship as the basic elements of a foundational metaphysics. This article explores the relevance of Bateson's recursive epistemology, his re-conception of the Great Chain of Being, a first-principles approach to defining the nature of mind, and understandings of interaction and difference, pattern and symmetry, interpretation and context.
https://philarchive.org/rec/TEMBPO

One of the perennial problems in philosophy is why a general consensus or rational agreement is so hard to come by on virtually all the interesting topics. This is also a problem about philosophy, since the lack of agreement certainly has to give philosophers pause, and make them wonder about the value of what they’re doing. — J

The image that comes to mind while reading your post is that of the Blind Men and the Elephant. A plethora of perspectives will not yield unity of knowledge. So the ideal of Objectivity gradually emerged, to provide the god-like perspective that we now expect of Modern Science.

One postulated solution to that "perennial" conflict of opinions has been to politically agree on a single authority, whose opinion will overrule any lesser authority. So, primitive people bowed to the strongest man among them to decide controversial issues. But when strong-men resorted to violence, instead of reason, to reach consensus, the moderates looked for some higher authority. When Kings were found to work only on a tribal level, they postulated a singular Super-Human to rule them all. Yet unanimity of opinion continued to elude them.

20 centuries ago, the early Roman Church was internally divided due to various opinions on which "scriptures" were to be accepted as the "word of God". The result of their international Council of Nicea was the anthology we know today as "The Bible" : produced, after much wrangling and anathematizing. Since some concepts in that Authorized Version --- Trinity ; Body/Bread --- were contrary to common sense, Theologians began to approach The Discord Problem philosophically. But even applying Reason to matters of Faith did not result in unity of opinion. So, they agreed to accept the pagan Aristotle as a neutral authority on the nature of Nature. And the rest is history . . . . of excommunication & execution due to differences of opinion.

The moral of these stories may be to accept that human knowledge is incomplete, and subject to personal bias. But somehow we manage to move-on from these intersections of opinion. For example, in constitutional convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin made a last desperate attempt to pull unity out of the fires of passion. He cautioned his fellow delegates that it is human nature to consider themselves to be "in possession of all truth." Then he pleaded " that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument".

Perhaps, the few remaining schools of Philosophy, should include Philosophical Humility in their curriculum. With that fire extinguisher at hand, maybe we can keep chipping away at the walls of intellectual pride & prejudice that divide us. :nerd:



The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

The rest of the story :
In some versions, the blind men then discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth and come to blows. The stories also differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.

Philosophical Humility :
Aristotle understood humility as a moral virtue, sandwiched between the vices of arrogance and moral weakness. Like Socrates, he believed that humility must include accurate self-knowledge and a generous acknowledgment of the qualities of others that avoids distortion and extremes.
https://positivepsychology.com/humility/