I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. But those terms do make sense in the context of the cultures and traditions in which they were meaningful. I suppose in terms of an ostensible ultimate, I could assent to 'dharma', which is from the Indic root meaning 'what holds together'. There are convergences between 'dharma' and 'logos'. — Wayfarer

I too, am cautious about speaking of philosophical Ultimate postulations on a mostly proximate-minded Materialistic forum. But in discussions about Mind & Consciousness, the question of Origins frequently comes up. So, I have used a variety of wiggle-words to describe a concept that is literally out-of-this-world : pre-Big-Bang & Pre-Space-Time. At first, I merely added an ambiguous asterisk to the common word for The Ultimate : G*D. But I also occasionally use some traditional philosophical terms, such as LOGOS & TAO, to describe the ineffable enforming-organizing power behind the scenes of this organic-orderly world, that somehow produces meaningful Order (patterns) out of random Chaos (noise).

I also avoid attributing such anthro-morphic characteristics as Goodness & Mercy to the creative force behind the program of heuristic Evolution (Nature). Which is often distinguished from intentional development (Culture) as "red in tooth & claw". The Tao is described as "harmonious", but that's merely an Ideal that is seldom found in a world divided between Predator & Prey. Instead, the world being created by the Tekton or Demiurge follows a meandering path that is globally balanced, but locally erratic. The "design" of this world is indeed Intelligent (logical), but not necessarily Good (emotional) from the perspective of its flesh & blood inhabitants. So, I refer to the long-running Cosmic Program of Emergence as "Intelligent Evolution". That's because it includes natural Laws (of unknown etiology) that guide it past heuristic accidents toward an unforseeable Ultimate Output.

From the viewpoint of the Enformationism thesis though, I refer to the presumptive creator (First Cause) of the evolutionary program, running on the physical computer we call the Universe, by the functional description : Programmer or Enformer. This non-traditional notion derives from modern sciences, including Evolutionary Programming, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory. And the fundamental element/essence of all those sciences is, not just inert Data, but causal Information (Energy + Law). You won't find these novel ideas in textbooks or dictionaries, because they are new & unproven, and possibly unprovable. And their only value is for philosophical speculation on ultimate questions. :smile:


TAO :
the absolute principle underlying the universe, combining within itself the principles of yin and yang and signifying the way, or code of behavior, that is in harmony with the natural order.
___Oxford dictionary
Note --- My thesis presents a neologism for the principle of Yin/Yang : BothAnd.

LOGOS :
When Aristotle talks about logos, he’s referring to ‘reasoned discourse’ or ‘the argument’.
https://boords.com/ethos-pathos-logos/what-is-logos-definition-and-examples-with-gifs
Note : I view the gradually evolving world as an on-going "argument" on an unknown topic. We don't know the original question, but we experience the pros & cons as the heuristic process of discovery, that we call "Evolution". The trend seems to be generally toward Complexity, but with inherent Contradictions.

DHARMA :
(in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order. ---Oxford dictionary
Note --- What Science calls "natural law", the ancients labelled as Tao, Dharma, or Logos. In each case, the Law is an ideal that is often broken by willful humans, with the gift of Consciousness.

As such, the Latin term “ratio” does not pivot on maths and computations – it certainly doesn’t equate to mathematical ratios in the modern sense of "ratio". Instead, this Latin term's meaning pivots on something far closer to discernment and, thereby, all that can result from and is implied by faculties of discernment (to include judgments, awareness of purpose(s), plans, and mathematical properties and relations, among many other possibilities). — javra

Thanks for the clarification. However, I was not making a statement about the Latin language, but about the modern usage of the term "ratio". Synonyms range from fraction, quotient, & percentage to proportion, balance, & relationship. It's also the root of "Rational", pertaining to Logic & Reason. All of those terms, and many more, convey particular aspects of the general concept of "Information" (the power to enform ; to create novel knowable things). And they are also related to "Logic" & "Reason" as functional features of human Consciousness. Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about the ubiquity of universal Information (bits) : from Math to Meaning to Physics (it from bit). :smile:

It from Bit Theory :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Note --- Before Shannon, "information" referred only to "things mental". Now it encompasses "all things", both physical and metaphysical.

Immaterial & Material Information :
"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses . . ."
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

I'm sorry, if my equation of Energy & Mind annoys you — Gnomon
It doesn’t annoy me, but I’m not persuaded by it. — Wayfarer

I suppose you are also not persuaded by Max Tegmark's thesis of a Mathematical Universe. Besides being anathema to the worldview of Materialism, that notion is counter-intuitive to the matter/energy sensing human brain. I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?). However, mathematics is not a physical substance out there in the world, but a way of modeling the world in the human Mind. My notion of Causal Information is similar, except that it is not just inert statistics, but dynamic ever-changing physics.

In James Glattfelder's book, Information-Consciousness-Reality, he devotes a chapter to the topic : A Universe Built of Information. There, he quotes editor/publisher of science books, John Horgan : "The everything-is-information meme violates common sense". Yet, Glattfelder concludes in the epilogue : "I believe in the computational engine of the universe --- reality's information-theoretic ontology. I believe that consciousness shares the same innate essence as the 'material' " {my bold} And, according to Einstein, the essence of Matter/Mass is Energy*1. But where did the cosmos-creating power of the Big Bang come from?

Not from within space-time, apparently. Hence, there must be something more eternal/essential/fundamental than physical Energy. That ultimate quintessence is what I call EnFormAction, and it necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang : as causal & organizing Potential. Without that motivational-directional-integrating impetus, nothing in the Actual world would exist : not even the dust of Entropy.

Obviously, we don't sense Matter & Energy as the same thing ; they have different physical properties & effects. But they share a formal relationship to some more fundamental essence. In my thesis, I refer to that essence as The Power to Enform, abbreviated as Information, or more technically as EnFormAction*2. What may not be so obvious is that I'm using a common word, "Information", in an uncommon sense : the ability to cause change, and to organize isolated parts into meaningful wholes. From that perspective, EnformAction is Energy + Laws. I usually avoid calling that magical power "divine" though, because that's a "woo word" and a dialog stopper. Instead, I refer to it anonymously by Plato's non-anthro-morphic term : "LOGOS".

For me the Source of all power in the universe remains a mystery, beyond the scope of empirical Science. So, I can't persuade you with hard facts, only metaphors & analogies & reasoning. :smile:


*1. Energy - Matter equivalence :
It's the world's most famous equation, but what does it really mean? "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

*2. EnFormAction :
*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons. The ability to know & interpret the non-self world is what we call Awareness or Consciousness : to make distinctions ; to parse random complexity into meaningful patterns.
*** The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Not according to the Oxford Dictionary online edition. It says the first use of the term was in relation to: accusatory or incriminatory intelligence against a person — Wayfarer

Perhaps, instead of original meaning of "information" I should have said "the pre-Shannon usage of 'information' " referred to the contents of a Mind. I wasn't talking about a particular dictionary definition, but to traditional usage over the years as indicated in synonyms : instruction, intelligence*1, knowledge, message.

The distinction I was trying to make is between Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of the meaningless carrier/container, as opposed to the message/content : meaning. The container of Shannon's Information is a material substance of some kind (neuron), but the content is immaterial knowledge (idea, meaning). Hence, the meaningful content of a bit of Information is mind-stuff. And a "bit" is a binary digit, expressed as a mathematical ratio*2. Which, incidentally is the root of "Reason" and "Rational". :nerd:

*1. Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. _____Wikipedia
Note --- For the purposes of my thesis, I refer to the various usages of "intelligible information" as contrasted with Shannon's "conveyable information".

*2. 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

Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them: — Ø implies everything

Yes. Time is just one way to measure the world. Spatial extension (3D) is timeless & static. But dynamic Motion extension brings in a new vector of time. Motion is a change in Spatial position that requires a fourth arrow for measurement.

In theory, Consciousness could be aware of static existence (object), but in practice our brains are designed to register differences in position (process). That's why our eyes are constantly sweeping the scene to detect meaningful differences in location (motion). So a time interval (change) is more meaningful to living organisms than static location in space. :smile:

According to wikiquote that statement that you are propagating, as being from Heisenberg, is misattributed. — wonderer1

OK. I'll delete the quote.

But I wasn't trying to "propagate" anything. I had never heard that quote before. And it doesn't even indicate the point I was trying to make : The quantum pioneers who used concepts from Eastern philosophy, were not trying to "propagate" the religions associated with the Holistic concepts.

Apparently Heisenberg was at least a nominal Christian, not a Hindu or Buddhist. On this forum Holistic ideas are often dismissed as "woo". But, Holism (e.g. entanglement) is a primary distinguishing factor of Quantum physics compared to Classical Newtonian physics. Yet, Newton himself was at least a nominal Christian, who dabbled in Alchemy. Which would be dismissed today as "woo". :smile:

It's not an analogy, it's a proposition. The difficulty with your thesis being that energy does not itself exhibit a 'capacity for experience', it acts without any such capacity, which is specific to consciousness. And to say that consciousness is a product of matter-energy is falling back to philosophical materialism. You're not going to arrive at anything like an explanation for where consciousness fits in the grand scheme by equating it with energy (or information, for that matter.) — Wayfarer

I'm sorry, if my equation of Energy & Mind annoys you. But, that's exactly why my thesis*1 is based on metaphysical Information instead of physical Energy. I sometimes call it "directed energy", or "causal energy", or "encoded energy", and sometimes "enforming principle"*2. But my primary alternative to the randomized matter-morphing Energy of Physics, is the notion of EnFormAction*3, which includes mental phenomena among its effects. Unfortunately, I have to repeatedly remind TPF posters that the original meaning of the word "Information", was " knowledge and the ability to know". Also, the relationship between metaphysical (mental) Information & physical (causal) Energy*4 is a recent discovery in science, hence not well known.

The Enformationism thesis is indeed intended to be an explanation for how metaphysical Consciousness could emerge from physical Evolution --- naturally and without divine intervention*5. Moreover, immaterial causal encoded Energy (EnFormAction) is proposed as the agent-of-Awareness in a material world. Unfortunately, that hypothesis is so far from the current dominant worldview, that it is counter-intuitive for those who are only familiar with Claude Shannon's narrow pragmatic definition of "information". So, I keep plugging away, to convey the notion that the reductive Physics definition of "Energy" captures only one aspect of its multifunction roles in the Real and Ideal realms of the World System. One eventual & eventful effect of that natural Causation is the mysterious emergence of mental phenomena in a constantly morphing material world. :smile:

PS__The gap-bridging monistic BothAnd principle*6 --- implicit in the EnFormAction concept --- is difficult for both dualistic-or-monistic Materialists and Spiritualists to accept.

*1. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information (Form), rather than Matter (Hyle), is the basic substance (essence) of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a 21st century update of the ancient paradigms of Materialism and Spiritualism.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

*2. Ultimate Enforming Principle :
A major dispute is that of Matter versus Spirit. The Bible describes God as a “spirit”, but the modern concept of Energy (a form of information) --- as an invisible power --- was not even a gleam in the eye of the Bronze Age scribes. Nevertheless, both Ward and I have used the novel Information Age notion of flowing data bits, pioneered by Claude Shannon, and many quantum physicists, as an analog of those invisible ancient agents known as ghosts & spirits.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page24.html

*3. What is EnFormAction? :
The BothAnd Principle is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Spiritualism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods. The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”. In this case though, the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation. But Energy & Causation are basically the same thing. And the “En-” prefix is typically used to indicate that which causes a thing to be in whatever state or form or condition is referred to.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*4. Information as Energy :
The literal equivalence of physical energy and mental information is still a fringe notion among scientists. But it has many credentialed champions, including Paul Davies, editor of the book noted above. Energy = Information (power to cause changes in Form).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. Preternatural LOGOS :
So, I’ll skip the history lesson, and focus mainly on the emerging secular notion of some force behind Nature that functions like an “invisible hand”, guiding humanity toward a more inclusive “moral circle”. This god-like guide is not conceived in anthro-morphic mythical terms, but more like Plato’s philosophical creative principle, the Logos.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page47.html

*6. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?
Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean? — Ø implies everything

Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change*1. That's what Einstein referred to as the "Fourth Dimension". We visualize that ongoing change as a river of water flowing downhill. But it's really the flow of invisible Energy/Causation flowing from hot to cold states, and causing physical changes along the way, that we can see, and attribute to the passing of ghostly Causation.

However, due to the digitizing of incoming data*2, our perception only captures still shots (moments, instants) of change. Which we then conceive as a continuous stream of change. So, our awareness of the "present" is actually delayed slightly from the external event.

Strangely, a related question arises : during the 10 billion years before the emergence of Life & Mind (sentience ; consciousness) --- did Time, as we know it --- still exist? Obviously, change was occurring, but is physical Change the same as metaphysical (conceptual) Time? Is there a temporal dimension when there is no one to measure it? When a tree falls in the forest --- with no ears around --- does it make a sound? :smile:



*1. All things flow, nothing abides. You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are continually flowing on. Nothing is permanent except change. ___Heraclitus

*2. Digital Perception : Neurons require a minimum input stimulus before firing an output. Thus there is a time-delay (+/- 80 milliseconds) between input & output. But our Conception of change is analog, with the gaps filled-in. Hence, as in a movie, we are not normally aware of the still frames that flash by faster than 80ms.

I read about the idea of a central processing hub a while back. It would take sensory cues, models, learned and innate reflexes, hopes, fears, etc. and smush it together somehow. — frank

Yes. Daniel Dennett derisively labeled that hypothetical "central processing hub" as the Cartesian Theatre. And the "hub" was portrayed as a homunculus (little man in the head). Materialist scientists are still looking in vain for a central processor in the brain. :nerd:

INFINITE REGRESS OF CONCEPTION

But if the cultural pendulum swings back toward thinking of ideas as some sort of stuff, or an interaction between stuff, then ideas would take their place among the material of materialism like gravity did. — frank

Gravity --- spooky action at a distance --- is often imagined as-if it's a material substance, and portrayed in images as a two dimensional grid in space. But in reality, there is no physical "tractor beam" out in space, pulling heavy objects toward each other. That's why Einstein defined it as an invisible mathematical relationship, not a tangible "fabric" with hills & valleys. Those are merely metaphors --- like the sentient homunculus --- to aid us in conceiving of something otherwise inconceivable, because immaterial. :smile:

WARPED FABRIC OF EMPTY SPACE

Given all those caveats, I think there's a case to be made for a type of dualism. Perhaps it could be argued that consciousness is 'the capacity for experience' in an allegorical manner to energy as 'the capacity for work'// and that physical matter, in the absence of consciousness, lacks the capacity for experience. So that the emergence of organisms is also the emergence of the capacity for experience, which is absent in the non-organic domain.// — Wayfarer

I like that analogy. Mostly because it aligns with my own little reductive thesis, that everything in the universe is a form of Energy, in the sense of Causation, and from the perspective of information theory1. Complexity/panoply is ultimately simplicity.

Since Einstein equated Matter (Mass) with Energy (E=MC^2), most of us on this forum have come to accept the counter-intuitive notion that invisible intangible Energy/Force can transform*2 into the visible tangible matter-substance-stuff that our physical senses are attuned to. And since Shannon equated knowable Information with Entropy/Uncertainty, we can now trace the emergence of the "capacity for experience" back to the primal "capacity for work" (for change, causation).

Mental experience (knowing, awareness) is mostly an encounter with Change (difference) in the environment. Those Transformations (changes in physical form) are due to the Causal power --- ability to do the work of metamorphosis (a change of the form or nature of a thing). That natural constructive/destructive power is merely Energy (EnFormAction*3) in its various forms (light, heat, impulse, etc). And those bits of experience (knowledge) are recordings in the brain/mind of minor changes in the environment. Collectively, we call those incoming bits & bytes of potential experience : "Information" (meaning, relative to self).

I apologize for using your analogy to discuss my own unfamiliar mashup of Energy & Information & Consciousness. I'm still looking for ways to make such arcane sub-atomic science understandable for philosophical purposes. Now, back to your regular program. :smile:

PS__The thesis ultimately compresses the conventional dualism of Mind/Brain into the monism of Universal Causation (the power to enform).


*1. Formation : to cause changes in structure, both positive & negative
To "inform" is to introduce a formative (causal) principle into a mind. To "enform" is to inject a causal (formative) principle into a material object.

*2. Transform : make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.
Abstract Energy (light, heat) is a wave form, alternating from maximum to minimum, and passing through a zero point in between. Compression of the wave intensifies the energy value. When compressed to a degree defined by the cosmic constant ("C"), now known as the vacuum energy density, it apparently "squeezes" the nothingness of vacuum into the measurable Mass of Matter. The result is a complete transformation of abstract Potential into concrete Actual. Magic? No, Science.

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

"The mind seems to be non-material, though tied to the brain which is material. . . . . The very idea of mind acting on matter by a pure effect of will appears a little spooky" — Gnomon
Is substance-dualism making a come back? — RogueAI

Apparently, Substance Dualism never went away. It seems to be compared or contrasted with Property Dualism in the never-ending debates on Brain vs Mind explanations for the mysterious-yet-familiar quality of Consciousness, by which we know both substances and properties. :smile:

PS__When I refer to "substance" in this context, I'm usually talking about Aristotle's definition as Essence.
Substance and Essence in Aristotle :
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801421266/substance-and-essence-in-aristotle/#bookTabs=1

He means that the information we have about how the visual system works, for instance, doesn't explain the experience of seeing, at least it hasn't yet. The knowledge about what the brain is doing during vision is third person data. The experience itself is first-person data. — frank

I'm currently reading a book by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics. After a chapter discussing Donald Hoffman's interface theory ("a necessary deception"), he raises the "binding problem"*2 of Consciousness, using vision as an example. "The retinal image is split apart at its very inception into disembodied aspects each of which is analyzed in different and specialized part of the brain". And, "the information parsed by the brain is assembled and comes together somewhere". Then he concludes, "no one knows where or how visual information comes together to yield a systematic, unitary image." He uses an old term from 20th century Psychology, Gestalt*3, to label those holistic concepts.

Apparently, incoming sensory information from the outside world is reductively "analyzed" by the brain into various qualia, like Shape or Motion, which are parceled-out according to their significance to the observer. But eventually, all those isolated parts must be re-integrated into the holistic concepts, we call Images or Ideas or Gestalts. Yet, there is no known mechanism for that transformation from parts to wholes. Even the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, doesn't specify by what magic the bits of physical neuronal information (codes) are transmuted into subjective metaphysical mental imagery (content). This implicit natural "magic" may be what Materialists dismiss as spooky "woo". Yet Pinter takes it seriously.

He uses several terms --- integrated, come together, convergence, confluence --- to describe the process of "binding" bits of information into meaningful bytes (words) of awareness. Yet his proposed mechanism is not a mechanism at all, but merely acknowledgement of the apparent duality of reality, and the necessary unity of the universe. "The mind seems to be non-material, though tied to the brain which is material. . . . . The very idea of mind acting on matter by a pure effect of will appears a little spooky". But it's only uncanny if your worldview has no place for immaterial stuff like Ideas & Ideals.

To explain the disdainful "woo" response to notions of matterless mental phenomena, Pinter notes that "contemporary philosophy is dominated by a materialist way of thinking strongly influenced by physics". Yet, since Materialism is an unproven presumption (axiom), the problem may be more of a "way of believing" than a "way of thinking". Although the term is not in the book's Index, his own monistic unifying approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness sounds more like Panpsychism. :smile:


PS___He doesn't refer to Biosemiology by name, but the author mentions that "the signals merely code the content", implying that the personal significance (meaning) of those incoming symbols is a product of Mind, not Brain. He also says, "the brain constructs a coded representation of the visual array . . . . There is no known physical mechanism which could achieve this unification". Here again, the implication of Holism, which is a taboo concept for believers in monistic Materialism, living in an apparently dualistic world. :nerd:


*1. Interface Theory :
Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
Note --- "primary" = incoming Percepts ; "secondary" = processed Concepts ???

*2. The neural binding problem :
In its most general form, “The Binding Problem” concerns how items that are encoded by distinct brain circuits can be combined for perception, decision, and action. In Science, something is called “a problem” when there is no plausible model for its substrate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/
Note --- Incoming physically encoded Information (abstract dots & dashes) must be metaphysically decoded (into meaningful words & images) in order to make sense to the observer.

*3. Gestalt :
The classic principles of the gestalt theory of visual perception include similarity, continuation, closure, proximity, figure/ground, and symmetry & order
https://www.toptal.com/designers/ui/gestalt-principles-of-design
Note --- Pinter says "Gestalt is not an objective fact of the world, but is a way of being perceived. It is a property of perception, not a property of of the external world." Although I appreciate the alliteration, to be more accurate, I would change physical "perception" to mental "conception",

Perception = analysis (reductive science)
Conception = integration (holistic philosophy)

David Chalmer's doesn't say that consciousness is off-limits. He says it is intractable from the third-person perspective, due to its first-person character. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the Consciousness problem is "intractable" for empirical science because subjective experience is seamless & holistic, with no obvious joints for reductive science to carve into smaller chunks of Awareness. Equating the material Brain with the immaterial Mind is like carving thin air with a steak knife. Unfortunately, that means philosophers can only analyze theoretically, not empirically. Is that like a toothless man gumming a steak, then trying to swallow it whole? We can get a taste of 3rd person Consciousness, but not the full meaning/feeling. :smile:

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Yes. What we are aware of is Change. And the cognitive ability to keep track of changes in the environment may be a minimum requirement for the continued survival of complex organisms ; to stave-off entropy. The actual progression of change may be continuous ("ongoing now"), but we humans tend to digitize holistic qualities into measurable increments. Each measured moment (now) is like a single still image on a strip of movie film. But the moments themselves are artifacts of mental processing, not inherent in Nature. Although I've heard of some theories saying that Time is essentially quantized*1.

Recently, I had a light-bulb moment, when I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation"*2. Energy is the cause, and Time is the effect. We seem to perceive Change, and conceive it as Time. The act of perception/conception is what we call "Awareness". So, I suspect that Consciousness is limited to only those elements of the world that can keep track of changes, via a record of energy events : Moments ; Memory. Does a rock retain a concept of Now & Then? :smile:



*1. Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit? :
"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/

*2. Time is the currency of Physics :
From a cosmological perspective it seems that Time (progressive change) is one activity that Energy is working on. Ironically, we typically think of Time as a fundamental feature of reality. But, it may be merely an effect of something even more essential : the cosmic power of Causation.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

↪Gnomon
The article you mention is by Marcello Barbieri - in my reading of biosemiotics, solely due to Apokrisis (to give credit where it's due) I've learned that Barbieri resigned as editor of the journal Biosemiotics, because he felt that it had become too philosophical and influenced by Peirce. He has initiated what he considers a new approach which he calls 'code biology', that, he says, is more concentrated on the science, less on the philosophy (I think Apokrisis would probably disagree but I'll leave that to him). There's a useful intro to his approach here What is information? (different from your own use of the term). He also wrote a history of the subject that I found useful - like, who's who in the zoo. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that information. :joke:

Barbieri's interest in Information is for its role in Biology. Whereas my focus is on its multifunction roles in Ontology, Epistemology, Physics & Psychology*1. But the article does provide some useful info on how specific applications of the General Information concept can be perceived as A> "too philosophical" or B> "too scientific", depending on the interests of the observer.

Apparently, prefers to err in the direction of B. Which may explain his disdain for my more A approach. He'll probably disagree with that explanatory dichotomy, though. That's because he & I seem to make the "epistemic cut" in different places : current state vs original state, or matter vs mind, or code vs cause. But that's OK. Narrowly-focused Biosemiology is probably closer to becoming a hard science, than my own wide-angle philosophical musings. :smile:

*1. Information : What is it?
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

I haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent. — Tom Storm

A wise insight! :up:

Unfortunately, some of us posters --- for the purpose of winning arguments --- sub-divide our ontological fundamental blocks of knowing & thinking into socially-determined (political or religious) fundamental beliefs. Which opens a trap door for endless mis-understanding. :sad:

The epistemic cut is simply that between knower and known, organism and environment and symbol v what is symbolised. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Your post clarified that -- to me -- unfamiliar concept : how to divide Monistic (holistic) Ontology into a Dualistic (reductive) Worldview : philosophy into science.

You may also be able to help me understand why is applying the notion of physically encoded Biosemiotics to mentally aware Consciousness. He seems to believe that it is a hard science, instead of a soft philosophy*1. We now know that the phenomenon of biological Life is dependent on biological codes, mostly in the form of DNA. But DNA itself is merely a stringy chemical. The code/symbol part is an idea in a human mind. So how could a code or symbol have any physical effect on the emergence of Life & Mind, in a universe of Physics & Chemistry, long before Biology & Psychology?

My interest in Biosemiotics is limited to its possible relationship to my own philosophical notion of Enformationism. A code is an abstract form of Information (SOS = . . . - - - . . . ), that when socially conventionalized, can convey meaning to a mind. But, how a notional code can have the physical effect of animating raw matter into biology, seems to be equivalent to Chalmer's "hard problem" of how raw matter can be enlightened into psychology (awareness). Am I missing something here? The mystery is in the transformation (transubstantiation?) of Material Substance into ethereal Life & Mind : both not tangible things but tenuous processes. That enigma is the motivation for my theory of metamorphizing Encoded Energy (EnFormAction).

Claude Shannon introduced the notion that meaningful Information results from the expenditure of causal Energy into voided Entropy. So, I'm trying to somehow fit the physical notion of Life Codes (Biosemiotics) into the metaphysical concept of Mind Codes (Information). The two should be connected, but the Body/Mind transition point seems to be related to the location of the Epistemic Cut. :smile:


*1. Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18365164/

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

I agree that much of the posting on metaphysical topics soon devolves into polarized Polemics instead of dispassionate Philosophy. The arguments may not convince anyone, but they do tend to offer challenges to personal presumptions. Such exercise may contribute to knowing thyself. :smile:

What he's calling 'an epistemic problem' is actually the metaphysical problem of appearance ('world image') and reality ('what we call the real world'). So I don't see that as 'resolving' the idealist-realist distinction. — Wayfarer

Thanks for stepping-in there. Your explanation makes more sense to me than the "epistemic cut" notion. For someone with no formal training in Philosophy or Biosemiotics, such jargon is way over my pointy little head. :smile:

Do you have any evidence for Chalmers being a neurologist? — wonderer1

Sorry. Perhaps I mis-spoke. What do you call a "neural scientist" if not a "neurologist"? A "neuroscientist"? I didn't mean to imply that he is an MD. Apparently, he's merely a Ph.D. :smile:

David Chalmers :
He is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University, as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › David_Chalmers

I won’t be much help, and this because I so far find this very quoted affirmation to be nonsensical. Bio-semiotics is the semiotics of life – it addresses the meaning transference of lifeforms and all this entails. To apply biosemiotics to a former cosmos devoid of life from which life emerged will either necessitate a panpsychistic cosmos by default or, else, again, it will make no sense: — javra

I agree that Biosemiotics is a theory of living things, not thinking things. So, I don't understand why sarcastically replied that "You did a splendid job of misrepresenting what biosemiosis claims". His alternate explanation is way over my head : "Simply put, semiotics resolves the antique dilemma of realism vs idealism by inserting the epistemic cut of the “sign” between the world and its interpretation".

The notion of an "epistemic cut" is not included in my everyday vocabulary. And I am not educated in Postmodern linguistic analysis, so the quote below*1 just sounds like gobbledygook to me. I asked apo to dumb it down for us un-indoctrinated dummies, but he seems to think it's beneath his dignity to stoop that low. Terrence Deacon's use of semiotics*2 seems to be limited to the recent biological phases of evolution, not to a "primeval epistemic cut". And I find his language much easier for a layman to grasp. Is the "epistemic cut" a case of circular reasoning, or of cutting Nature at imaginary joints? :smile:




*1. The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut :
Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code.
https://casci.binghamton.edu/publications/pattee/pattee.html

*2. How Molecules Became Signs :
These molecules are not the source of biological information but are instead semiotic artifacts onto which dynamical functional constraints have been progressively offloaded during the course of evolution. ___Terrence Deacon
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9

Yes. Exactly. Science needs materialism to work. Are there aspects of life where a materialist view is not helpful? — T Clark

Yes. Materialism is not helpful for dealing with the philosophy of mind*1. That's why David Chalmers, a professional Neurologist, calls the metaphysics of Mind : "the hard problem". The philosophy of Panpsychism is all about aboutness*2. :smile:


*1. Materialism in the philosophy of mind :
Materialism – which, for almost all purposes, is the same as physicalism – is the theory that everything that exists is material. Natural science shows that most things are intelligible in material terms, but mind presents problems in at least two ways. The first is consciousness, as found in the ‘raw feel’ of subjective experience. The second is the intentionality of thought, which is the property of being about something beyond itself; ‘aboutness’ seems not to be a physical relation in the ordinary sense.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism-in-the-philosophy-of-mind/v-1

*2. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

If that's true, they are metaphysics - ways of looking at the world. The question to ask is whether or not they are useful ways. — T Clark

Yes. But useful for what purpose?

The materialists on this forum appear to be only interested in physical scientific uses : e.g. can we build artificial intelligence into computers? However, the panpsychists seem to be focused on metaphysical philosophical purposes : e.g. can we understand the relationship between the real world of physics and the ideal world of metaphysics?

For the purposes of this forum, do you prefer impersonal mechanistic objectives, or personal meaningful motives? Is that a fair question? Some posters are clear about their preferences. But you seem to be somewhat ambivalent about siding with Science or Philosophy or Both. Perhaps that's a sign of an open mind? And I applaud the open-door policy. At least it leaves the door ajar for exchanges of views : "ways of looking at the world" :smile:

Each one of these primitive mind endowed (and, hence, awareness endowed) cells is constituted of organic molecules – some of which which have been empirically evidenced to exhibit at least some QM properties. — javra

You seem to be more familiar with Biology than with Quantum Physics*1. If so, you may be able to enlighten me about Biosemiotics (BS). Which has been proposed as an alternative to Panpsychism (PP) as a mechanism for the emergence of Mind from Matter. doesn't seem to be willing to engage with an infidel (unbeliever in Materialism) to explain some of the technical jargon he uses in his posts. My interest in BS is simply that the semiotic (symbolic) aspects of the BS theory may be related to the Information Theory that I am better aquainted with. But some of the language sounds like Postmodern linguistic analysis*2 that is opaque to my simple mind. Does BS tell us anything new & important about Biology in general, or about the symbol manipulating Mind?

Although It's clear to me that the Potential for Mental Phenomena (sensation ; psychology ; awareness ; knowledge, etc) must have been inherent in Nature from the beginning, my understanding of Information Theory tells me that the "primitive mind" wouldn't necessarily be Conscious or Aware. Instead, it could have begun as nothing more sophisticated than exchanges of Energy, which are meaningless abstract interrelationships. Yet the human brain seems to be capable of processing & integrating perceived-information-structures/patterns into personally relevant meanings. Those private subjective meanings are what I would call "awareness". Anyway, that's the hypothesis I'm working on. :smile:


*1. Quantum biology at the cellular level :
Quantum biology is emerging as a new field at the intersection between fundamental physics and biology, promising novel insights into the nature and origin of biological order.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23470561/

*2. Postmodernist Writing :
I think most Postmodernist writing can be classified into these categories: ... Much of analytic philosophy is so abstruse and hermetically sealed that it too becomes an exercise in obscurantism. Where the style of thought diminishes content.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/02/nonsense-and-postmodernist-writing.html

You cut and paste all this stuff you don’t understand. That is why you can’t follow an informed discussion about it. — apokrisis

Sorry to have bothered you with dumb questions about an esoteric topic. I guess Biosemiotics is not for the uninformed general public. Are you reserving that secret information for only the cognoscenti? :joke:

↪Gnomon
You questions were incoherent:smile: . — apokrisis

Apo, I could say the same about the quote from your post. But I didn't want to be crass. :joke:

I was simply asking for clarification of unfamiliar jargon and technical idioms. Is that so hard? :smile:

Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes. — T Clark

I didn't think you were an expert on the philosophy of monistic Panpsychism; neither am I. But you seem to have a negative opinion of it. Others on this forum openly label such immaterial notions as "woo". It is obviously contrary to the fundamental axiom*1 of monistic Materialism. And it may seem contradict another basic assumption of Naturalism : "nothing supernatural"*2. Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method.

Ironically, some supporters of the Ppsyche idea are professional scientists (see my post above). Yet they will admit it's not an objective empirical observation, but a merely philosophical conjecture*3 from personal experience with the immaterial (i.e. mathematical) non-classical non-mechanical sub-atomic nature of the foundations of Reality. So, that raises the question : Is the Universal Mind Conjecture a plausible/tenable/rational philosophical (not scientific) inference/hunch/hypothesis (e.g. from quantum evidence) to explain the emergence of mental phenomena late in the evolution of material phenomena. If so, why or why not? I have an ulterior, but not nefarious, motive for soliciting your unbiased opinion.

My understanding of the traditional & modern Universal Mind theories is also superficial. As they used to say, "all I know is what I read in the papers"(e.g. Wiki). I'm not a member of any group of believers. But, as I understand it, the Cosmic Mind concept assumes that the quality of Consciousness (summarized as Mind) is prior to quantitative Matter. Hence, the material objects we know via the 5 senses, are manifestations of some loosely-defined mind-like power inherent in the universe. Some may think of that universal power as an eternal consciousness (e.g. Brahma). But others may be content to think of it as simply an impersonal primordial Principle of some kind : Logos. All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable.

Are you familiar with 21st century Information Theory? My own Information-centric view is similar to Ppsyche in some ways, except that the ultimate Principle (EnFormAction/Directed Energy) is not defined as a conscious Mind, but more like an evolutionary computer program. It's also limited to our best understanding of foundational sub-atomic Physics, plus observed evidence of astronomical evolution, and interpreted in terms of Information Theory. No reference to traditional or biblical or shamanic sources.

So, Enformationism is intended to be more specific in its definitions, and attempts to adhere more closely to current scientific knowledge. It also avoids putting words in the mouth of the Unknown God/Principle (e.g. thou shalt/shalt not). Instead, the "book of nature" (e.g. Laws of Physics) is the only Word (Logos) of the hypothetical Programmer. I know, it's a bit much to grok. But, does that kind of conjecture sound any more plausible/tenable, to you, than traditional Panpsychism? Yes, no, maybe? :smile:

*1. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief?
On this understanding, materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is unclear, however, whether we can consider it an axiom
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

*2. Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them :
the sciences have de facto conceded ontological naturalism: supernaturalist belief systems simply aren’t tenable anymore
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

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

The less woo understanding of this Bayesianism is that the human measurer can construct the mechanical constraints on a prepared quantum system so as to decohere it to the degree it answers to a classical counterfactual description. — apokrisis

The quoted sentence above, sounds pretty technical (abstruse). Can you deconstruct it for someone not familiar with Biosemiotic jargon? Does it deny that the observer of a quantum experiment can influence, but not control, its outcome? Is Biosemiotics derived from a metaphysical Materialism worldview? Hence, avoiding the "woo" label, signifying non-sense? Do you think that Wheeler meant to imply a mind-over-matter form of magic?

Are you implying that Wheeler's Participatory Realism is more woo than Biosemiotics? Does PR sound like "anti-realism" to you? What does Biosemiosis mean for a human "construct" like Participatory Realism? The meaning of that phrase is simple enough : biological humans play a role in the construction of their own personal mental model of reality. And Bayesianism is about private subjective first-person beliefs (models), not about ding an sich reality. Third-person objective models of reality (science facts) are based on a consensus drawn from among various first person models (opinions). But it's still a mental map, not the physical terrain. :smile:


On Participatory Realism :
These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism

Anti-Realism : in philosophy, a belief that is opposed to realism (= the belief that objects continue to exist even when no one is there to see them):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-realism

This goes out to those who are not irreducibly fixated on the unquestionable reality of their own particular worldview, whatever it might be (if any). — javra

Coincidentally, I just came across a YouTube video, by Sabine Hossenfelder, on the topic of "why the universe is not locally real". After a quick Google, I found that it's a hot topic right now, because of the recent Nobel winners. Quantum physics should give those who are "irreducibly fixated" pause to question their assumptions about their own local Reality. To quote an old TV ad : "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile:

Why No Portals?
Universe is not locally real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkgPJo_z6Y

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

Then: Properly speaking, would you interpret panpsychism thus understood to be an ontological monism or an ontological, non-Cartesian dualism? — javra

Depends on how you look at it. :joke:

Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Souls, Spirits, and Ghosts. But now, quantum scientists are forced to deal with the effects of observation on the foundations of reality. I'm not aware of any results of that new insight that could be called "practical magic".

Except, of course, for the ability to transform immaterial information into physical matter & energy*1. But the science of "virtual reality" certainly gives philosophers something to think about. Quantum Bayesianism is one way of looking at how personal beliefs & expectations can affect the models of Reality that we construct. For theoretical philosophy though, I see many possibilities for making sense of a non-classical non-mechanical world, where ideas are either a dime a dozen, or the substance of human culture.

For me, the Statistical Holism of quantum entanglement is not a sign of divine perversion (e.g. trickster god). But it does put ancient holistic models into a new light. Seems like it could be interpreted as Ontological Monism. But from another angle, we've intuited for millennia that reality is a mind/body Substance Dualism of some sort. Personally, I have interpreted this New Science in terms of Quantum & Information theories : evolutionary EnFormAction*2 and ontological Enformationism*3. :smile:



1. Elemental Information Hypothesis :
Several philosophers and scientists have concluded from implications of Quantum Theory, Information Theory, and Computer Simulations that mathematical-mental Information is the elemental substance of reality underlying the Space-Time-Matter-Energy we observe on the macro level of human perception and in classical physics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note -- "Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy".
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*2. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction is going out-there.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. What is Information? :
The Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd Blog are based on a multi-level understanding of the phenomenon known as “Information”. Unfortunately, most people have only a vague or general concept of what the term means scientifically and philosophically. So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

You seem to be a level-headed fellow. So, I was concerned that you interpreted my brief sketches of three competing worldviews as "mis-representing" the ideas of those who hold such views. It was not intended as a put-down, but as a way to distinguish the philosophically pertinent differences between them. If you are willing, I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. For example, here's what I said in the post above :

"Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter."

You admitted to being a Materialist, depending on circumstances ; and I admitted to being a Materialist, for all practical purposes. But I suspect that you assumed I was prejudiced in favor of spooky Panexperientialism. So, I confessed that I am not a panpsychist in any formal sense. And I don't believe that grains of sand are conscious. Besides, I have never been a hippie or Hindu, and I don't personally know anyone who admits openly to being a Panpsychist, except for a few scientists & philosophers whose books I have read. Yet, ancient Cosmic Mind theories do seem to be prescient of modern non-mechanical post-classical physics.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'll note that I have been steered away from conventional Materialism by the elementary physics of 20th century Quantum Theory. The QT pioneers were shocked to discover that the fundamental indivisible Atom they were seeking seemed to fracture into a menagerie of sub-atomic particles. Eventually, even the evanescent sub-sub-particles (e.g. Quarks) soon dissolved into nothing more substantial than uncertain statistical equations*1. So, the mathematical physicists began to describe their new Reality in terms of a Quantum Field of "virtual particles", that only become real when observed by experimenters*2. That's not magic, it's physics.

Any effect of the observer's mind upon material reality was, of course, quite controversial for those steeped in classical mechanical physics. But, after a century of debate, the flame-wars have calmed-down. So, QFT now seems to be almost mainstream*3. Today, some quantum physicists and mathematicians (noted in post above) openly admit to some form of Panpsychism worldview. However, my personal view has little to do with that ancient Cosmic Mind concept. Instead, it's a combination of Quantum & Information theories, as advocated by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity, for example.

I just started reading a book, by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter. And the subtitle says : "How the Mind creates the features & structure of all things, and why this Insight transforms Physics". It mentions Quantum Bayesianism*4, which I was only vaguely familiar with. Perhaps, a glance at the excerpt below will give you an idea of the 21st century notion that Mind is fundamental to reality, not an incidental side-effect of random evolution. I mention all of this abstruse & esoteric stuff, just to let you know that I'm not an anti-science nut-case spouting hippie non-sense. :smile:


*1. A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks ... which means they are fermions according to the spin–statistics theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

*2. The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*3. Quantum field theory,a framework for explaining how subatomic particles behave, ... Mathematician Seeks to Bring Quantum Field Theory into Mainstream Math
https://bfl.cns.utexas.edu › news › mathematician-seeks-t...

*4. Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement. According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Note --- QBism expands upon the notion of "participatory realism", that quantum physicist John A. Wheeler postulated back in the '60s. From the perspective of Materialism, it may sound like anti-realism.

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's beliefs. Just to be descriptive of a pertinent contrasting interpretation of the Materialistic belief system*1, in a thread on the topic of the ontological status of Mind. Besides, some of the matter-first Materialists on this forum do mis-represent the beliefs of mind-first Panpsychists as primitive, superstitious, and gullible. But they are just trying to show the superiority of their own modern & scientific worldview over ancient spooky-woo. This, despite some scientific evidence to support a mind-first view.

Personally, I'm not a Panpsychist, in any formal sense. So, I don't have a dog in the race between true believers on both sides. As I've stated before : for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist; but for philosophical reasons, I am an Idealist. So, I agree with you : ideas matter, but not literally. :smile:

*1. Does eliminative materialism regard consciousness as an illusion? :
There is a relatively new position in philosophy of mind called illusionism.
https://www.quora.com/Does-eliminative-materialism-regard-consciousness-as-an-illusion

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2005/entries/materialism-eliminative/

In what conceivable way is panpsychism not a reclothing (i.e., re-branding or re-veiling) of the quite ancient and, back then, basically ubiquitous notion of animism?

In other words, what can possibly be rationally different between panpsychism and animism as metaphysical understandings of reality? — javra

Materialists will dismiss both Panpsychism and Animism as primitive religious superstitions. But the 21st century quantum physicists (see my post above), who openly admit to accepting Universal Mind as a valid philosophical interpretation of their empirical work, cannot be described as "primitive" or "superstitious". Yet, more conventional scientists will still interpret the evidence in terms of their matter-is-fundamental Naturalistic worldview*1. And that's OK, for scientific purposes. Yet, for philosophical purposes, that view has an explanatory gap at the inception of Matter itself.

I do think of the ancient writings about universal Mind as prescient-but-primitive guesses about how mental phenomena could emerge from material substrates. Quantum Physics is not as definitive about such enigmatic questions, but it does point in the same direction : Mental Potential is intrinsic in the universe, but emerges in stages ; as postulated several thousand years ago in Hindu philosophy*2.

Likewise, instead of presuming that essential Potential was fully-formed into Consciousness at the beginning, some 21st century thinkers interpret that power-to-evolve-both-matter-&-minds in terms of both Evolutionary Theory and Information Theory*3. The same essential "stuff" animates Matter and informs Brains. From that non-mainstream perspective, the potential to change Possibility to Actuality, Inanimate to Animate, and Neurons to Awareness, is closer to our modern notion of causal Energy, than to fully-evolved homo sapiens Consciousness. :smile:

To Inform : implies the imparting of knowledge https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inform
Note --- Knowledge presumes Consciousness

*1. Why Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong :
Perhaps phenomenal properties, or ‘proto-phenomenal’ precursors of them, are the fundamental intrinsic properties of matter we’re looking for, and each subatomic particle is a tiny conscious subject. This solves the hard problem: brain and consciousness emerge together when billions of basic particles are assembled in the right way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/panpsychism-is-wrong/500774/

*2. Hindu Mind Evolves :
In this theory, mind is an emergent entity, but this emergence requires the presence of the Self. The mind may be viewed to be constituted by five basic components: manas, ahamkara, citta, buddhi and atman, which cannot be reduced to gross elements. Manas is the lower mind which collects sense impressions.
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/understanding-the-vedic-model-of-the-mind

*3. Is energy a form of information? :
Information is a distinct form of energy, just as electricity, magnetism, steam, nuclear, or solar radiation are also alternate forms of energy. To illustrate this, consider that information behaves similarly to other energy types. Many physicists agree that information is conserved, especially at the quantum level.
https://jumpthespark.com/2017/02/06/information-is-energy/
Note --- Information is like Energy in its Cause & Effect functions : to convert incoming photons into mental images, and mental images into language.

Over at Vox Future Perfect. — Srap Tasmaner

One Amazon review of Goff's book, boils it down to a competition between theories for the origin of consciousness in a material world : "The book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter.

Global Workspace Theory is merely a Cartesian Theater metaphor that does not attempt to answer the Origin question. Integrated Information Theory assumes that Consciousness is a summary (integral) product of fundamental mathematical essence : number. Again, these alternative definitions of Consciousness presume that some kind of mind essence "just is", with no further elaboration on its original source.

Pragmatic here & now science has no need for hypotheses about ultimate origins. But over the millennia, theoretical philosophy has produced a proliferation of possible ontologies. Which include the three noted above, plus one more that was once the leading candidate, but is no longer considered a viable option : intelligent intentional creation by divine fiat. Hence it was omitted from the "round-up". Ironically, due mostly to the quandaries of quantum science, the ancient notion of fundamental/essential Mind*1 seems to be making a comeback to fill the gaps in those other theories. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

"The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes".___OP

My own approach is more oriented around 'history of ideas' and understanding how ideas influence cultural dynamics and entrenched attitudes, leavened somewhat with my engagement with Buddhist praxis — Wayfarer

My knowledge of the 'history of ideas', and of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy --- not to mention "praxis" --- may be superficial compared to yours. And my knowledge of Western Philosophy --- especially of the modern era --- is superficial to that of . So, I don't pretend to compete in those arenas. But my "expertise" --- relatively speaking --- is in the 21st century sciences of Quantum Physics (QP) and Information Theory (IT).

The pioneers of QP, baffled by the variance of their experiments from classical/mechanical Newtonian Physics, turned to Hindu & Buddhist vocabularies --- not the religions --- to express the Holistic & Immaterial (mental) aspects of sub-atomic reality. John A. Wheeler even went so far as to combine QP and IT in his famous "It from Bit" postulation. Then, he went on to propose the Participatory Anthropic Principle*1, which implied that the observer's mind could have real effects upon the material world --- at least on the sub-atomic scale. He eventually toyed with the idea of a Weak Anthropic Principle, and even a Strong Anthropic Principle*2.

Obviously, such spooky-woo notions (per 180) are anathema to a believer in hard Materialism, in which the Mind is a minor side-effect of Brain functions, with no magical powers over the material world. Being a practicing scientist, not a philosopher, Wheeler didn't expand his Information/Matter/Mind theory to its ultimate conclusion. So others took-up the gauntlet for him. And their Information-centric (not matter-centric) reasoning led to the conclusion that the human mind must be a descendant of a Prime Mind of some kind : a Logos or Enformer/Programmer.

Both the woke Buddha and itty-bitty Wheeler, being pragmatic practitioners in their own fields, astutely avoided making the philosophical inference of an ultimate Mind, who planted the enforming seed that eventually sprouted in homo sapiens (rational ape). Yet, since I am an amateur philosopher, with no peer review to revile my unorthodox ideas for conformance to established orthodoxy*3, I feel free to take the "it from bit" seed to its logical ontological conclusion.

However, since I have no interest in founding a popular religion, I'm content to use the ancient vocabulary of Plato (Logos) and a neologism of my own devising (EnFormAction) to express my personal opinions on an opinion-sharing forum. As for Plato, my Logos/Enformer is no Satan or Savior, just Order-Organization-Reason in a growing-maturing-complexifying material world --- where the only Nirvana is a refuge of your own imagination. :smile:



*1. "A participatory anthropic principle (PAP) was proposed by the American physicist John Archibald Wheeler. He suggested that if one takes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics seriously, one may conclude that, because no phenomenon can be said to exist until it is observed,"
https://www.britannica.com/science/participatory-anthropic-principle
Note : This strange statement by a physicist, echoes Berkeley's Idealist assertion : "Berkeley's immaterialism argues that "esse est percipi (aut percipere)", which in English is to be is to be perceived (or to perceive). ___Wiki

*2. "THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE The ultimate form of anthropic reasoning is to assert that the coincidences we have remarked on are more than that: that the universe must be such as to admit the production of intelligent life at some time. This idea is known as the strong anthropic principle."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_5.html
Note -- Weak Principle = Intelligence from Coincidence. Strong Principle = Intelligence from Intelligence.

*3. On this forum, 180 proof has appointed himself as the un-official inquisitor of Scientism/Naturalism/Materialism orthodoxy. And what vexes his know-it-all-neurons most is the mutual ideas : a> that there is some immaterial force in the world (energy/information) and b> that it originated in some preter-natural Intelligence. He need not worry though. The Enformationism philosophy, with a single adherent, is just a personal opinion (like that of Gallileo), based on eye-opening observations of the squishy (non-mechanical) foundations of the material world.
No, 180, I'm not equating my little QP/IT notion with Gallileo's church-threatening revelations. Perhaps Information-centric physicists, Wheeler & Paul Davies, though, will find a similar place in the future history of science & philosophy. All I can say, as an amateur with no credentials, is that the all-purpose role of Information in the world makes sense of many philosophical & scientific enigmas for me : such as the emergence of intentional Reasoning in a world of dumb Matter & dynamic Energy.

*4. "By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos

But your use of the metaphors of information and information processing introduce many difficulties from a philosophical point of view. My own approach is more oriented around 'history of ideas' and understanding how ideas influence cultural dynamics and entrenched attitudes, leavened somewhat with my engagement with Buddhist praxis — Wayfarer

I am aware that you and I are coming from completely different backgrounds : mine in the sciences, yours in history & literature. But, surprisingly, we have come to similar conclusions about some of the most controversial topics discussed on this forum. Hence, though wearing different uniforms, we are forced to stand back-to-back, fending-off the forces of encircling orthodox Scientism.

For example : "The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes". Personally, I don't interpret the existence of abstract Thought & logical Reason as evidence of a "supernatural" act of intervention, in the traditional sense of many world religions. Instead, I attribute the ubiquitous role of mathematical/material Information in the world to a mysterious preter-natural source, similar to the abstract principles that Plato & Aristotle called First Cause or Logos or Prime Mover. Except for that hypothetical Ontological beginning, everything else in the world is a natural result of evolutionary programming. No superstitions necessary, it's just coding.

Since I have no divine revelation or Buddhist insights, I have no basis for making more specific conjectures about the postulated metaphorical Enformer or Programmer : it's just a theory, like the Big Bang. Hence, it does not prescribe any unique shoulds & oughts & thou shalts. From the perspective of doctrinaire Naturalists though, that pre-natural + natural postulation leaves me suspended between mythical or superstitious religions, and empirical pragmatic sciences. My worldview is completely natural & mundane, up to the point where physical Nature began in an astronomically-unlikely bang in the dark. Beyond that, anything I, or anyone else, might say is a shot in the dark. :smile:

Tropes and universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus
By rational agents - human beings - augmented with intentionally-designed artefacts - computers and calculators. Were those rational abilities absent, there would be no apprehension of tropes or universals. I know it's already been suggested that crows can count, but try explaining the concept of prime to them. — Wayfarer

Again, we have here an instance of looking at one side (the apparent side) of the whole world. Since scientists have concluded, from available evidence, that big-brained homo sapiens emerged on a minor planet on the margin of an ordinary spiral galaxy, only after 14 billion earth-years of gradual development. If so, did "tropes & universals" exist in the natural world for all those eons of evolution, or are they a result of "artificial" reasoning? What about "mathematics"?*1 Is that a natural thing, or an unnatural product of human reasoning? If the universe was "computing" the inputs & outputs of Nature since the system was suddenly turned-on in a Big Bang of matter/energy interaction, who/what encoded the program of evolution? Was it a sapient counting crow? (just kidding)

A materialistic worldview intentionally avoids dealing with the elephant in the world : the human mind, the rational observer --- those annoying unnatural pests who lit-up the world with artificial light. Perhaps, as you once noted, that evasion may be due to exaggerated "fear of organized religion", or of abstract reason. in a post above, responded to my question : "Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"?", with : "Define 'human intelligence' ". Of course, he was not really interested in my opinion on the subject ; just looking for another opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of his mountaintop-Illuminati intellect, unburdened by the superstitions of such spooky concepts as immaterial (functional) Minds & Intelligences --- presumably including gods & ghosts & angels. Judging by superficial appearances, a doctrinaire Materialist might not see any meaningful difference between a counting crow and a computing scientist.

The implicit assumption of monistic Materialism is that anything the human mind imagines --- that can't be counted --- does not matter. And that countless category includes the distinction between Brains & Minds, or Seeing & Knowing. If he placed a coin on a table and asked me if it was heads or tails, he would ridicule my holistic BothAnd answer, because you can't see the downside of the coin ; so it doesn't count, even though you know that it is there, by reasoning from prior experience. Sure, reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusions, but so can discounting what is not directly apparent to the 5 senses. Likewise, discounting the value of human reasoning, just because it a natural outcome of mundane evolution --- instead of a divine miracle --- can lead to a one-sided worldview. A belief system that ignores ideas, reasons, and other abstractions as immaterial*2. :smile:

PS___Yes, " universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms" because, like any other man-made language, computer code can represent abstractions with symbols*3.

*1. What is Mathematics? :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
__Oxford

*2. What are Abstractions? :
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events
___Oxford

*3. What is a Symbol? :
something visible that by association or convention represents something else that is invisible.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/symbol

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". — Gnomon

Again, I'll reply to you, because dialoging with 180 is like talking to a snarky wall. He says that, in his superior wisdom, he is convinced that physical events are indeed computable --- as Wolfram, Tegmark, etc claim --- but he is "not convinced . . . that physical reality must be a computer executing a nonphysical program". His incredulity toward anything "nonphysical" is built-in to the dogma of Materialism, and non-physical Intelligence is taboo. But many mathematicians, such as Wolfram & Tegmark are platonist in their view of the ontological status of mathematics/logic*1. That's mainly because math & logic are about systematic interrelationships (meanings), not isolated things (atoms in void). Likewise, a computer program is not a material object, but an imagined sequence/system of events, mathematically encoded into a complex Algorithm (a conceptual procedure, not a physical thing).

So, a real computer --- perhaps including the universe --- is a physical/material machine designed by a Designer to process some mathematical software encoded by a Programmer, with some eventual end in mind. The input-to-output procedure is typically aimed at future knowledge of something not otherwise knowable --- otherwise, why bother to do the math? If that statement is true of the PC running non-physical software on your desktop, why is it a "hasty generalization" to conclude that the evolving universe also requires some kind to mind to explain the origin of both the hardware computer and the software code? Apparently, for 180, there is no such thing as software : it's all hardware, all the way down*3.

180's Materialistic worldview seems to be based on pragmatic scientific Reduction, instead of theoretical philosophical Generalization*2. But reduction to what? The ancient Atom of Materialism has proved elusive & uncertain to the quantum scientists, who now mostly think of Reality as a Mathematical Field of some kind. Which is why Tegmark wrote his book : Our Mathematical Universe, My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Yet, for him, the universe itself seems to be the ultimate Atom of reality. So he doesn't bother to make the next logical step, from computer (logical) universe to a universal (rational)] Programmer. Ironically, due to the inherent randomness of cosmic evolution, the fate of the universe is unpredictable. Unlike the instant creation of Genesis, even the Programmer of gradual evolution could not know the final outcome, except by running the Program to its conclusion*4. :smile:


*1. Is math non physical? :
Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

*2. Philosophical Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims. Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements (thus creating a conceptual model).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*3. Software :
Software of a computer is actually a collection of data or some type of instructions that dictates the computer how to perform some work. From this definition it is quite evident that software is a completely massless collection of instructions. So, it can't be the physical part of a computer.
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-the-physical-parts-of-a-computer-called-software
Note --- The computer is a material hardstuff (hyle), but the software is immaterial mindstuff (morph, form)

*4. " Ultimately, it would be fair to say the Universe itself is chaotic and therefore unpredictable."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/chaos-theory-why-the-universe-is-a-massive-unpredictable-mess/

— Wayfarer

sarcastically & superciliously ridiculed your & my spooky immaterial opinions in this thread about general Reason instead of particular Things. Specifically, he poo-poos my information-based posts postulating something like a data-processing-universe theory.

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". Apparently he connects my personal theory with those of several famous mathematicians & physicists. So, it looks like I'm in good company. FWIW, since I avoid engaging in put-down polemics, here's my response indirectly addressed to 180 :

My only knowledge of Ed Fredkin came in Robert Wright's 1988 book : Three Scientists And Their Gods, Looking For Meaning in an Age of Information. Wright said, "He posits not only laws but a law enforcement agency : a computer. Somewhere out there, he believes, is a machinelike thing that actually keeps our our individual bits of space abiding by the rule of the universal cellular automaton, With this belief Fredkin crosses the line between physics and metaphysics".

Wright later asks, "where is this computer that Fredkin keeps talking about". Fellow physicist and Information theorist, Rolf Landauer noted the flaw in Fredkin's theory, infinite regress : "It's turtles all the way down". Wright goes on to ask, "if matter is made of information, what is the information made of?" Apparently Fredkin's god-like cosmic computer is just an ontological metaphor, and not subject to ultimate empirical evidence. Likewise, my own hypothetical god-like Enformer is just an immaterial metaphor, and not amenable to materialistic challenges. It simply provides a way to think about the kind of Ultimate Origin questions that Plato & Aristotle answered with the metaphor of a First Cause. Sure the container of the metaphor is a material brain, but what is the substance of an abstract metaphor?

Would you (180) also accuse Fredkin, a certified genius, of "hasty generalization" and "unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) intelligent design"? Is his "law enforcement agent" a god-of-the-gaps posit to cover our ignorance of ultimate answers? Is his "computer" a self-programmed natural intelligence, or an artificial intelligence created by an even more intelligent Programmer? Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"? Perhaps, it just doesn't matter, literally. :smile:

PS__180's Materialistic worldview seems to force him to assume that the information & ideas encoded into a computer program are made of some kind of exotic matter. He doesn't understand that the matter is a container for information, not the ideas per se.

I think the sharp edge of occams razor can be put to this and as you said reduce it to simply a product of a simpler form of interaction without adding new components or variables (like dark energy) to explain away the misunderstanding. — Benj96

Precisely! Scientists may be on a wild-goose chase as they look for some heretofore unknown particles (equivalent to photons) in order to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Looking at cosmic change in terms of Energy/Time/Causation might avoid such inane questions as "what is the universe expanding into?", with no need to postulate mythical multiverses. :smile:

For me time and space are linked in that at lightspeed neither "exist" in any substantial way. — Benj96

Yes. Space-Time is not an objective thing, but a subjective interpretation of perception of measurable Matter & causal Energy. It's how we think of Being & Change. :nerd:
.