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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I agree that there is no certainty about this. But I don't believe this gives us permission to fill the gap with metaphysical speculation. — Tom Storm

Ha! What would philosophers do with their free time, if "metaphysical speculation" was not permitted by the truth censors? :smile:

Huh? I think you are projecting. I'm not intending to make a logical argument by raising this. I am making what I think is an interesting observation that an atheist philosopher would use the language and arguments of Christian apologetics. — Tom Storm

Sorry, It wasn't meant to be personal. I was referring to the "christian apologist" argument as "guilt by association". To wit : anything postulated by those committed to a different worldview is inherently emotionally motivated, hence unreasonable. It is indeed "interesting" that both sides in the "fear of nihilism" vs "fear of religion" contentions make similar "self-contradictory" arguments.

In the movie about pre-feminism women's baseball, A League of their Own, the catcher says to the tearful fielder : "there's no crying in baseball". Likewise, there's no Fear in Philosophy. :smile:

I also don't think I made the point that it is nefarious. Can you explain why this might be seen as nefarious? — Tom Storm

Sorry again. I was using a provocative word (Nefarious etymology = not divine truth) to describe the finger-pointing between pro vs con sides of the "whence Consciousness" disputes. Each side questions the illicit motives (or impiety), not the reasoning, of the other side.

I find some partial truths on both shores, but I think the final truth is in the inscrutable ocean between. After all these years, the origin of meta-physical Consciousness in a physical world remains a mystery. But people still have polarized opinions on the topic. I apologize, if my finger-pointing at Atheist & Theist apologists sounded offensive to you personally. Typically, I find your posts to be a calm port in a stormy sea of opinions :cool:

Meta-physical : non-physical ; mental vs material ; ideal vs real. Not necessarily super-natural.

He says that the idea that the mind evolved as a consequence of mindless physical forces is self-contradictory and that there must be a teleological explanation for the existence of conscious beings. — Wayfarer
Yeah, well these, like Nagel's other arguments seem to be right out of the Christian apologist's playbook ('atheism is self-refuting', etc), in seeking to address atheism and the fear of nihilism. — Tom Storm

Guilt by association may be emotionally persuasive, but it's not a good logical argument. Your implication of nefarious motives for the Christian rejection of an Atheist article of faith (based on "Fear of Religion" motives?) may be correct. But what if the Christian thinkers are also correct to see Mind from Mindless as a logical paradox?

I am a post-Christian, but I am not an Atheist, because I also see evidence for teleological patterns in scientific evidence*1, and the necessity for Mind from Mind, that is not dependent on ancient religious speculations. My own Enformationism worldview is non-religious, but it has some philosophical parallels, due to seeing the same causal implications (directional patterns) in the objective evidence*2. My thesis & blog go into some detail to provide a rationale for (non-religious) philosophical teleology, and for the not-so-mysterious origin of Consciousness in a material world.

I don't trace the positive direction of evolution (nothingness to stars to human aspiration) back to the wrathful Tyrant-god of Abrahamic traditions. But I am inclined to accept the ancient Greek notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover of some kind. And the "kind" is of the Logos type. Specifically, something with the power to Enform (to cause change of form). My 21st century origin myth is founded on Quantum & Information theories, not stories of loving & punishing & political absentee-father-figures in the sky. Even so, I am forced to agree with the "apologists" that there are signs of teleological intentions (a heuristic program) in the world. But I disagree on some of the attributed anthro-morphic characteristics of the mysterious Programmer. :smile:


*1. Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Mention teleology in scientific circles and you’ll usually get a skeptical response. Purpose in the way the world is evolving? Patterns certainly—but purpose? No. . . .
Fascinating to be sure, but in the end, skeptics may ask, what's it all about? Is consciousness really inevitable in the universe?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2016/06/08/why-teleology-isnt-dead/?sh=2ec8259e6d69

*2. Intentional Causation vs Random Chance :
"At the Santa Fe Institute [for the study of complex adaptive systems] one finds an unusually high density of people who dispute the notion that we are creatures of chance . . . . that there is an inevitability to life . . . . that the emergence of life itself is written into the universal laws."
___excerpt from Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson

The problem of intentionality, meaning, and purpose is a very deep one, although, as Thomas Nagel observed, much of the debate about it is shaped by the fear of religion: — Wayfarer

I had to back-up to find your casual use of the phrase "fear of religion", that provoked some prickly reaction. In response, you gave a link to Nagel's article Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion. I didn't find a specific reference, but I suspect that the "evolutionary naturalism" was Dennett's contra-Chomsky notion of The Evolution of Language*4. Regardless of all that in-fighting among philosophers about the mysterious origins of human language, I found Nagel's article interesting on its own terms. For example, he quoted Charles Peirce to indicate a position that is not religious in practice, but seems to almost deify Nature*1*5.

Nagel's argument sounds amenable to my own information-centric non-religious philosophical worldview. Even though the Enformationism thesis is derived entirely from modern scientific knowledge, not from any traditional religion, I find that some Naturalists are discomfited by the notion "that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental"*2. I suppose that's because Darwin's mundane-evolution theory left the emergence of Mind from Matter as a mystery to solved later. To this day, we still don't have "an adequate theory of consciousness"*3.

Since the content of Nagel's article is off-topic, I won't discuss it further in this post. Except to say that it may indirectly suggest why some of us, frustrated by the inadequacies of Reductionism, Materialism, and Naturalism, have labeled the ultimate origins of Mind, Consciousness, and Language as a poetic mystery, instead of a topic for scientific analysis. :smile:


*1. Charles Pierce :
The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real,--the object of its worship and its aspiration.
___quoted in Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion


*2. Thomas Nagel :
The reason I call this view alarming is that it is hard to know what world picture to associate it with, and difficult to avoid the suspicion that the picture will be religious, or quasi-religious. Rationalism has always had a more religious flavor than empiricism. Even without God, the idea of a natural sympathy between the deepest truths of nature and the deepest layers of the human mind, which can be exploited to allow gradual development of a truer and truer conception of reality, makes us more at home in the universe than is secularly comfortable.The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous . I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
___ excerpt from Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion

*3. Theory of mind and Darwin’s legacy :
Both dualism and materialism are mistaken because they deny consciousness is part of the physical world. ___John Searle
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1301214110


*4. Dennett and the Evolution of Language :
“To my own surprise, I’ve come to believe that there is an element of truth in the apparently less plausible Platonic story that’s easy to miss, one that seems to be almost completely obscured by the paradox that both Quine and Plato have described. It isn’t that our languages were deliberately invented by particular groups of people, legislators of syndics in the formal sense of these words, sitting around particular tables, at particular times in the past. It seems to me that they’re more like our dogs, our wolfhounds and sheepdogs and dachshunds, our retrievers, and pointers and greyhounds. We didn’t invent them exactly, but our ancestors did repeatedly make deliberate more or less rational choices in the process that made them what they are today, choices among a long series of slightly incrementally different variants, unconsciously shaping the dogs into precisely what their human breeders needed them to be."
https://kingdablog.com/2017/02/21/dennett-and-the-evolution-of-language/

*5. What is naturalist theory of religion?
"Religious naturalism is a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world and rejects the notion of a supernatural realm." The term religious in this context is construed in general terms, separate from the traditions, customs, or beliefs of any one of the established religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism

For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world. — T Clark

As a concept, "God" plays many roles, and has many definitions. By some definitions, Satan is a god, and some envision a cloven-footed creature running amok in the world. But for me, the only relevant role of G*D for a non-theist, is to explain the existence & order of the physical world. Since that definition places the creator outside of the creation, it is unknowable by empirical means. Hence, it is necessarily a "metaphysical" (mental) conjecture, not a physical (material) object. So, we may never know the final answer.

A non-physical First Cause of the physical world, literally doesn't matter. So what difference does it make, if god does not exist in any meaningful sense? For example, some thinkers have postulated god-substitutes (e.g. Multiverse) that assume the essential attributes of a world creator (e.g. intelligence, intention, creative power) are self-existent properties of space-time and matter-energy. Hence, nothing special. That is indeed a "way of looking at the world", but leaves the crucial "why?" unanswered --- not to mention "how?". Does a contingent world require a reason for being? Why ask "why"? Why not just "shut up and calculate"? Why do philosophers ask "why?", and argue endlessly over un-provable postulations? :smile:

So what do you think? Is “define your terms!” always or often or ever a legitimate imperative? — Jamal

It's not so much the particular wording of a definition that is mandatory for communication, but differentiation between various versions of the idea to be communicated. Presumably, Voltaire placed definition first in the process of communication, because the same word can have many shades of meaning. And the point of philosophical dialog is often to shed light on those shades. :smile:

They can't because dogs don't have a language faculty. Communication and language are frequently confused, they are not the same. All animals (or most of them) have some form of communication, but they don't have language. — Manuel

The dogs in the videos are obviously using pre-recorded human language to express their limited doggie thoughts. But they seem to know the meaning of those sounds. So, it's true that human Language is uniquely human, but the mental & emotional elements from which spoken & written communication evolved were inherited from animal ancestors, who were limited to gestures, such as wagging tails. Apparently language evolved along with hands, big brains, and upright posture. :smile:

Why Chimpanzees Can't Learn Language :
Chomsky not only argued that language was uniquely human but he also questioned Charles Darwin's theory that language evolved from animal communication and B.F. Skinner's theory that language could be reduced to learned behavior.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/terr17110

Why invoke 'fear of religion'... — Isaac
Have you read the essay that this is quoted from, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, by Thomas Nagel? I think what he says in that essay is extremely relevant to many of the arguments we see on this forum, including this one, which is why I quoted it. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the majority of humans do not "fear religion". It's mostly god-fearing intellectuals & liberals who are not attracted to mysterious & authoritarian religions with bloodthirsty deities. Religious people seem to reason that it's best to be on the side of the biggest baddest M-F, when the world is out to get you.

I haven't made a study of that specific fear phenomenon. But I see a possible explanation in Liberal vs Conservative politics. Most ancient religions, from which our tamer modern religions evolved, were designed to appease capricious nature deities or sword-wielding warrior-king gods. I take the words of the "preacher" literally : "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind." The most fearsome gods were modeled upon the typical Middle-Eastern ("off with his head") Tyrant Kings of the era.

Living in fear of your god makes sense if you don't want to get on his bad side. As a political concept, that may explain the resurgence of Fascism in the modern world : Trump ; Putin, etc. As long as Hitler was successful in dominating Europe, most Germans were content to accept his selective benevolence (Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, non-Aryans, etc. were outcasts). It was only a few intellectuals, who could foresee a bleak future for non-conformists in a Fascist world (e.g. The Man in the High Castle).

The upside of Machiavellian dictators & Tyrant gods is that they mandate order --- making the trains run on time --- making it rain for the pious. But the downside is that they surround themselves with yes-men, and kill-off independent thinkers (philosophers), who ask too many questions. Perhaps Mysterianism envisions a more decent deity, but doesn't see much evidence for it in the political and religious realms. :smile:


Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion :
I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of
religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_IqIxLEwAaRi2ztoP3PIF_6lCSfqm-X/view?pli=1
Note-- Like what? Like Hitler's Reich where Jews like Nagel were not welcome?

Continuing with the case of other animals, suppose someone says "dogs will learn how to use laptops, it's just a matter of "learning more" and eventually they will understand it". — Manuel

Dogs don't have fingers to operate laptops, but the notion of them learning button-pushing communication is not far-fetched. Amazon has several models of "dog button mats" available. And I've seen several videos of dogs that seem to know how to speak with technology, even though they lack a human larynx. I wonder what Chomsky would say about chatting doggies using human language to convey their thoughts. :smile:

How Do Talking Dog Buttons Work? :
https://www.petmd.com/dog/behavior/how-do-talking-dog-buttons-work

My Talking Dog Uses Her Buttons to Talk About The Past :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS3kviWGkH0

Why stop at a transition? — Gnomon

Scientific frameworks describe specific phenomena. We stop because claims about "energy" make no sense.
Energy is NOT an agent. Your understanding of what energy is..is very weird. Energy is nothing more than an abstract concept describing the capacity to do work.
It doesn't go anywhere "after brain states are energized". Metabolic molecules provide the energy to our brain to function. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. but my comment was not a "scientific framework"; just a comment on a philosophy forum, about one of the long-running mysteries of the world. I'm aware that for scientists Energy is just a number to plug into their calculations. But for philosophers, Energy is the causal force of all change*1.

Whatever it is, Energy is both a Qualitative (power, capacity, ability) and Quantitative (rate of change) abstraction of the cause of transformation*2. Metaphorically, Energy is described as "flowing" like a liquid. It "flows" from Hot to Cold (both are quantitative states, not objects or places)*3. But the metaphors are necessary only because Energy is invisible & intangible & sneaky. Like a distant wind in the night, we only know it exists by observing its after-effects : change. As a Causal Agent, Energy is spooky.

My Enformationism thesis is based on the conclusion by quantum physicists that Energy is a form of Generic Information*4. Information, for physicists, is the universal power to enform, to transform. As a statistical state of being, it's not a physical thing, of course. But it's often treated as-if it's an agency (action, influence, power). It may be a medium of agency, but that leaves the original causal Agent to the imagination. So yes, like quantum physics, my concept of Energy (Causation) is "weird". :smile:


*1. Causation and the Flow of Energy :
Secondly, 'power', 'force', and 'energy', have senses in which they are not synonymous with the other terms in Hume's causation circle . . . .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20010665

*2. Energy transformation,also known as energy conversion, is the process of changing energy from one form to another. In physics, energy is a quantity that provides the capacity to perform work or moving, or provides heat. ___Wikipedia

*3. Into the Cool :
Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3533936.html

*4. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. — Gnomon

Einstein's framework describes a relation in a way smaller scale.......
You can say that metabolic molecules produce energy by which brain systems are able to produce mental states...and this is where we need to stop. — Nickolasgaspar

Why stop at a transition? Energy is the universal Cause of change. Why not see where it goes after brain states are energized? What "breathes fire" into the brain? :smile:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Can you demonstrate that there is design in nature?
— Tom Storm
I myself don't think it needs to be demonstrated, but that if I need to demonstrate it, then probably nothing I could say would be effective. — Wayfarer
Ok. That's surely an outlier position, but let's get back to this later. — Tom Storm

Design Intent is not an object to be demonstrated empirically. But the designer's unique signature patterns (e.g. characteristic brush strokes by Michelangelo) can be recognized intuitively or implicitly by those who look for them. In physical Nature, some call those consistent patterns : "Laws". Einstein was indeed an "outlier" in his sense of design in nature, where other physicists saw only complexity & randomness. :smile:


Design in Nature : How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organizations/dp/0307744345

Constructal Law :
In this groundbreaking book, Adrian Bejan takes the recurring patterns in nature—trees, tributaries, air passages, neural networks, and lightning bolts—and reveals how a single principle of physics, the constructal law, accounts for the evolution of these and many other designs in our world.
... Google Books

THE GRAND DESIGN as intuited by Einstein

↪Benj96
You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon?
Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis? — Nickolasgaspar

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. The article below*1 is way over my head, but it seems to connect abstract "Quantum Mechanics" with organic "Metabolism", and with "crystalline solids" ("non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase" ). I don't follow everything in his proposal, but the notion that "Phase Transitions" (such as Energy into Matter) are essential to other transformations --- such as Matter to Chemistry, Chemistry to Biology, and Biology to Mind --- makes sense to me. I'll have to leave it to the experts in each field to provide the numbers ("mathematical formalism") that add-up from quantum abstractions (e.g. virtual particles ; wavicles) to concrete Matter, to functional Biology, to imaginary Mind. :smile:


*1. Implications of quantum metabolism :
Quantum Metabolism rests on the notion that the enzymatic oscillations in cellular organelles and the material oscillators in crystalline solids can be analyzed in terms of the same mathematical formalism used by Einstein and Debye in the quantum theory of solids.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321517/

I would use the term "conceptualizing" rather than "reason" for a number of reasons — schopenhauer1

I agree that the ability to conceptualize -- to form abstract representations of real phenomena -- is a major factor in human consciousness. But I'd say "in concert with" rather than "rather than Reason". Logical abstraction is the reason we represent (conceptualize) ideal Consciousness, as-if it is a real thing. Accurate maps can be confused with the actual terrain.

Reasoning is the process of converting concrete sensory Percepts into abstract mental Concepts or Ideas. So both are necessary to producing consciousness (including self-awareness) of the human kind. We typically assume that "higher" animals, such as primates, are conscious. But since they lack language to express their ideas, we can't take their word for it. Some researchers have concluded that they are mimicking instead of conceptualizing*1.

So, the jury is out on that question *2. But the early notion of Reason as the uniquely human trait was expressed in Plato's use of the word for "Word" : Logos. Reason is the producer of esoteric (hidden) concepts, and exoteric (manifest) Words are the useful product for communication of subjective imagery to other minds. It's that complete system that allows humans to fly, and to walk on the moon.

Therefore, it seems obvious that the human ability to convert Real into Ideal is unique in the world. And the "hard problem" is to explain how that process of abstraction from Real to Ideal is possible, in terms of classical physics. That's why some thinkers are looking to Quantum physics for clues to the mystery of Mind in a material world. :smile:

*1. The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/

*2. Do Animals Have Concepts? :
In philosophy, concepts have also been seen in purely abstract terms. That’s in the sense that concepts are seen to have no direct relation to mentality or to biological brains — except for the fact that brains (or minds) can gain access to them.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/do-animals-have-concepts-3830c2f8d472

*3. Quantum mind :
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics alone cannot explain consciousness, positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet untested, and can overlap with quantum mysticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Note -- See the thread on the New Mysterians among scientists : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14203/on-chomskys-annoying-mysterianism

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". That is to say it consistently, or constantly transforms. — Benj96

The substance fitting that definition is Information.

According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode. Causal Information is the fundamental substance, constantly transforming into various modes. :smile:

What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Without a special “tree-sensing” sense, how can I possibly experience a tree? — Art48

I suspect that the extra-sensory sense you refer to, is Reason (ability to infer wholes from parts). A tree is a system of many parts, but treeness is a quality of the whole integrated system. All living things have some ability to sense the environment, searching for specific patterns that indicate usefulness (e.g. food) for the purposes of the organism. In humans that pattern-seeking talent, consciousness, is at its most general.

Reason is an information processing facility, sifting sensory inputs to separate beneficial patterns from detrimental. The evolutionary path to reason begins with basic chemistry (e.g carbon atoms link with complementary atoms to form organic matter). Then organs link-up to form organisms. Eventually, those abstract puzzle pieces form recognizable patterns, that minds equipped with multiple senses can cognize into meanings.

In mathematical terms, Reason can be defined as a detector of ratios (proportions) that indicate fitness for specific functions. And those fitness functions become the basic purposes of sentient beings. So, if a tree has been found by experience to facilitate the survival of an organism, it will be engraved in memory with a name and a meaning : tree >> roots-trunk-leaves >> tall & climbable >> something to ascend when attacked by a predator. Therefore, pattern sensing is an evolutionary fitness trait that contributed to reproduction of brain genes and eventually to mind memes.

Reason, per se, is not inherent in basic matter, but the potential for reasoning must have been encoded in the mathematics of matter, in the form we now know as Information : essentially, the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative. Those opposing forces lie on the utmost ends of a continuous range of possible states. Yet, nature tends to select moderate states that are complementary & constructive, instead of contradictory & destructive. Eventually, the ability to learn the utility of treeness allowed a few mammals with hands to stand on their own two feet, and to grow big brains on the tip-top of their neural systems. :smile:

PS__Sorry for the elaboration, I got carried away with the tree metaphor. :yikes:

Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. ___Wikipedia
Logic is the organizing mathematical structure of the world. Reason is the ability to detect logical structural patterns against the background of randomness.

Reason :
a> the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
b> to discover, formulate, or conclude

“Intelligence is based on how efficient a species became at doing the things they need to survive.” . . . . “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”
___Charles Darwin

The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter.
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

Be careful how you speak openly of Consciousness & Matter in the same breath. Some people may think you are Mad. :joke:

Personally, I don't think Matter arises from Consciousness (Idealism), but I do have a theory of how Consciousness could evolve from the same origin as Matter. It's based on the 20th century discovery in Physics that Generic Information is the fundamental element of the universe*1. Just as Einstein concluded that Matter is merely a form of Energy (E=MC^2), I postulate that Energy is a form of Generic Information (my term). That's not the passive stuff that Claude Shannon made famous, but the same Awareness & Aboutness that is processed & stored in human minds. Here's a link to one of my blog posts on this topic*2. :smile:

*1. Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
Arguably, information could even be the fundamental brick with which physical reality is built (Wheeler’s ‘It from Bit thesis’)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

*2. Foundation of Reality : Matter or Consciousness? :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- Although this post refers to a "First Cause", or "Creator", or "generic G*D", it is not intended to be a Religious concept, or a Scientific theory, but merely a Philosophical conjecture.

I see that list is drawn from Wikipedia. I don't trust the provenance of that article and I'm sure few of those names would be willing to be described with that name. I'm sure Nagel shouldn't be on it. The only one who willingly adopted it was McGinn afaik.
Besides what would it be to 'explain' consciousness? The whole idea might be a red herring. Of course it is true that psychology is not a precise science, but then you're dealing with the subject of experience, not objects whose properties can be precisely specified. — Wayfarer

I have only a superficial knowledge of the New Mysterian appellation. So I'll let you argue with the Wiki editors, and Dr. Owen Flanagan about what names should be on the list of thinkers, who have punted on the quest to answer the ancient Mind/Body question. The only one I know something about is polymath Martin Gardner, who labelled himself as a Mysterian*1 in a Skeptical Inquirer article many years ago. But then, he was actually referring to the God question : essentially admitting to being an Agnostic instead of an Atheist.

Your question, "what would it be to explain consciousness" is evocative of Nagel's "what is it like to be a bat?" In both questions the subject is Subjectivity. We know our own minds intimately, but other minds have always been somewhat of a mystery*2. I suppose that what "annoys" may be its rejection of the Myth of Objectivity*3 inherent in the faith of Scientism. I don't know what motivated the "deep thinkers" on the New Mysterian list, but I doubt that it was a desire to drive a stake "into the heart of scientism"*4. Instead. More likely, it was merely the realization that some Qualia questions are not susceptible to the empirical methods of Quantitative science, nor to the reductive methods of Analytical philosophy.

I wouldn't call the Consciousness conundrum a "red herring", but the mystery may be a product of how you frame the question. Since human awareness has been traditionally associated with a non-physical
Soul, it would be, by definition, eliminated from the subject matter of Science, and reserved for the purview of Religion. However, in my Enformationism thesis, I postulate that Consciousness is merely a highly-developed form of fundamental Information*5.

So my frame is closer to clarifying Science than to mystifying Religion, in that the emergence of Mind from material evolution was simply a product of eons of information processing*6, instead of instantaneous creation. But one minor mystery remains : who or what programmed the evolutionary Logic (mechanism) and Data (initial conditions) into the Singularity that went "bang", to begin the long procession from mindless matter-melding to mind-driven thinkers asking unanswerable questions? :smile:


*1. I Am a Mysterian :
I belong to a small group of thinkers called the “mysterians.” It includes Thomas Nagel, Colin McGinn, Jerry Fodor, also Noam Chomsky, Roger Penrose, and a few others.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400847983-003/html?lang=en

*2. Problem of Other Minds :
in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-other-minds

*3. The Myth of Objectivity :
The problem of objectivity centers on the question: What can we Know about reality The dominant epistemology (theory of Knowledge) underlying most accounts of cognition begins with the assumption that the world, i.e., objective reality, exists independently of we who observe it. Thus, the logical imperative for the philosopher, psychologist, or neurophysiologist is to account for how we perceive and Know about such a world.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-0115-8_2

*4. Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

*5. Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Arguably, information could even be the fundamental brick with which physical reality is built (Wheeler’s ‘It from Bit thesis’).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

*6. What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change (e.g. energy); also the essence of awareness : to create Concepts from Percepts.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

1. Are there "deep" arguments that I don't understand?
2. What is Chomsky's real motivation for adopting mysteryism?
3, Is Chomsky really a mysterianist, or he hides something? — Eugen

Apparently, quite a few deep thinkers have concluded that human Consciousness is an impenetrable mystery. David Chalmers famously called it the "Hard Problem", and he is not even on the list below*1. I don't know what Chomsky's motivation was, but he explains his reasoning in the extensive article linked by Manuel in another thread : https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/ChomskyMysteriesNatureHidden2009.pdf

I suppose the roadblock to understanding Reason by means of Reason is fundamental. It's like seeing the retina of the eye with your own eye. But there are ways around that physical obstruction. Unfortunately, examining Consciousness with the scope of Consciousness is a meta-physical problem, that can't be circumvented by using a mechanism, or another consciousness, to do the "seeing". So, the "mystery" is merely due to the intrinsic limitations of a Subjective perspective on Objective reality.

For my own purposes though, I have simplified the Brain/Mind problem by showing that they are merely two forms of the same fundamental cause : Information (power to enform, to create)*2. This may be solving the problem by redefining a Dualistic difficulty in terms of simplistic Monism. But there are good scientific & philosophical reasons for that equation*3. I'm not nearly as smart as the thinkers on the list below, who publicly renounced the Mind Mystery, as insolvable by scientific methods. "But the new mysterianism is a postmodern position designed to drive a railroad spike through the heart of scientism" (Owen Flanagan) . :cool:


*1. New mysterians :
*** William James,
*** Carl Jung,
*** Colin McGinn is the leading proponent of the new mysterian position among major philosophers.
*** Thomas Nagel, American philosopher.
*** Jerry Fodor, American philosopher and cognitive scientist.[citation needed]
*** Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, and political commentator/activist.
*** Martin Gardner, American mathematics and science writer, considered himself to be a mysterian.
*** John Horgan, American science journalist.
*** Steven Pinker, American psychologist; favoured mysterianism in How the Mind Works, and later wrote: "The brain is a product of evolution, and just as animal brains have their limitations, we have ours. Our brains can't hold a hundred numbers in memory, can't visualize seven-dimensional space and perhaps can't intuitively grasp why neural information processing observed from the outside should give rise to subjective experience on the inside. This is where I place my bet, though I admit that the theory could be demolished when an unborn genius—a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness—comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us."
*** Roger Penrose, English physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science.[citation needed]
*** Edward Witten, American string theorist.
*** Sam Harris, American neuroscientist, has endorsed mysterianism by stating that "This situation has been characterized as an "explanatory gap" and the "hard problem of consciousness," and it is surely both. I am sympathetic with those who, like ... McGinn and ... Pinker, have judged the impasse to be total: Perhaps the emergence of consciousness is simply incomprehensible in human terms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

*2. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*3. Brain/Mind Paradox :
Empirical Science treats the human mind as an integral function of the physical brain. But we intuitively put the mind in a different category. That's why it has traditionally been associated with a non-physical Soul, which requires a dualistic notion of humanity. The Enformationism paradigm though, is ultimately monistic, viewing Information as the single "substance" of reality. But that primordial stuff has two aspects : an active verb form, EnFormAction (energy), and a passive noun form, Information (matter). The brain is enformed stuff, which converts stored Information (memory) into non-physical ideas, images, and feelings.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Telling an Australian how to punt? :lol:

In the post in which this discussion started, you claimed that one could accept idealism and realism simultaneously, that this was an acceptable paradox, analogous to other supposed paradoxes. — Banno

Sorry if I was bringing "coals to Newcastle". I wasn't sure that the American football idiom would have the same meaning for those who are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands. :joke:

Apparently, my idiomatic use of the terms "Idealism" and "Realism" also did not translate for you. To some absolutist thinkers, they are like oil & water, which don't mix. But in the Enformationism thesis, aethereal Ideas & Real stuff grow from the same root : Generic Information. I don't expect you to blithely accept my idiosyncratic Holistic (multi-value) BothAnd*1 worldview. FWIW, it is a modern alternative to the ancient classical Either/Or (two value) compartmentation, which ignores complexity and divides the world into convenient categories and stark oppositions. Either/Or is an idealized worldview.

Instead, the 21st century BothAnd Principle derives from the 20th century Quantum Uncertainty Principle*2, which acknowledges a "fundamental limit" to human knowledge. BothAnd also accepts such counter-intuitive "facts" as Wave/Particle duality, for which you can't draw a hard line between those classical definitions. In my worldview, mental Ideas exist within the same Reality as material objects, not in some heavenly realm. So the line between Ideal & Real is arbitrary. It's all one universal system, stemming from a single source. Therefore, the exclusive Paradox exists in your mind, not in the world. :nerd:


*1.   The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist categories of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of pragmatism requires “skin in the game” to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremism of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.

*2. Uncertainty Principle :
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions. ___Wikipedia

Okay so I'll try to approach this with another analogy: imagine the mind or conscious awareness as some sort of "non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase (structured form) as well as a liquid/fluid one. — Benj96

I never thought of my EnFormAction principle as a "non-Newtonian fluid" (like Oobleck or Flubber), but it is defined as the ability to transform from one "phase" to another. Here's a glimpse of that information-based concept, which is one step toward understanding the Hard Problem. :smile:

Phase Transformation :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

That's not a paradox. The equations of QM are very clear, and certainly not contradictor. You cannot use them as an example of accomodating a paradox. Shut up and calculate. — Banno

I didn't give wave-particle duality the label : "paradox". That what the scientists trying to understand the evidence of their experiments called it, when it contradicted their classical expectations. Einstein & co. tried to contradict their contradiction (the Copenhagen compromise or accomodation to uncertainty) with the EPR paradox*1*2. This was a difference of opinion among experts : literally a para-dox*3. Is Zeno's paradox really a paradox, or simply the result of inappropriate framing of a question?*4

Schrodinger's equation is clear : the physical status of subatomic particles depends on how you look at it. So different observers and different setups (frames) reach different conclusions. And a difference of opinion (belief) is a paradox. As far as the scientists can tell, there is no Fact of the matter. A particle in superposition is neither a localized object nor a continuous wave, so they punted*5 and called it a "wavicle". Which is a contradiction of Newtonian physics. So, I stand by my use of quantum physics as an example of scientists forced to "accomodate" to a paradox, in order to leave them free to "shut up and calculate". Now, what was the question? :smile:


*1. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which argues that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Podolsky%E2%80%93Rosen_paradox

*2. Copenhagen accomodation :
Quantum realism rejects both physical realism and Bohr’s Copenhagen compromise.
https://brianwhitworth.com/quantum-realism-3-1-4-the-copenhagen-compromise/
Note --- words related to accommodation, such as: compromise, reconciliation, adaptation, compliance, composition ...

*3. Paradox etymology :
mid 16th century (originally denoting a statement contrary to accepted opinion): via late Latin from Greek paradoxon ‘contrary (opinion)’, neuter adjective used as a noun, from para- ‘distinct from’ + doxa ‘opinion’.

*4. Framing contradictory evidence :
So the crucial question becomes: How can something be both a wave - spread-out over space with a succession of humps and troughs, and at the same time, not spread out - a tiny, localised point-like particle? This dilemma is known as the wave-particle paradox.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/physics/paradox-wave-particles

*5. Punted: To Give Up
But as an idiom, “to punt” means to give up, to defer action, or to pass responsibility off to someone else.

A side note, on your suggesting that we accept paradoxes. Accepting a paradox is tantamount to accepting anything. — Banno

Normally, in cases of clarity, that might seem be true. But when uncertainty is inherent, a compromise between competing opinions becomes necessary*1.That's why we call them "paradoxes"*2 (contrary opinion). If your opinion is different from mine, I could assume that you are wrong. But some differences of opinion eventually turn-out to be truish : a blend of yours & mine. And, since Psychology & Neuroscience are not yet "hard" sciences, Hoffman's "illusion" may be one of those cases. Besides, the Interface Theory is just an analogy, subject to various interpretations.

The most famous paradox in modern science is the wave/particle duality. In classical physics, a discrete particle is the opposite of a continuous wave. So the early quantum scientists debated the apparent combination of wave & particle properties. They eventually realized that the quantum scale of reality has different rules from the macro scale. Schrodinger's Cat paradox was not intended to be taken literally, but merely to illustrate the counter-intuitive nature of quantum physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics was intended to settle harsh differences of opinion about quantum reality. But the controversies continue to this day.

So, my interpretation of Hoffman's Interface Theory is that it is another cat-box paradox. Just as you would expect the cat to be either dead or alive, you'd expect that your senses, honed by eons of evolution, would convey accurate impressions of reality. But Hoffman's reality-in-a-box model is both/and : your mental reality and your objective reality must necessarily co-exist. Your opinion of reality may be different from mine, but that doesn't mean that you are wrong. It does suggest that mental Ideality & physical Reality coexist in the same world.

Therefore, I can accept Hoffman's special case paradox, about human perception & conception, without being forced to "accept anything", such as ghost sightings. However, like the Copenhagen consensus, the philosophical paradox may remain, even as the pragmatic science becomes more settled. At this moment, Hoffman's theory is considered to be "more evolutionary psychology than neuroscience"*3. Nevertheless, I find it useful for my non-pragmatic philosophical purposes. :smile:


*1. Quantum Uncertainty :
The quantum nature of the Universe tells us that certain quantities have an inherent uncertainty built into them, and that pairs of quantities have their uncertainties related to one another. There is no evidence for a more fundamental reality with hidden variables that underlies our observable, quantum Universe.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-uncertainty/

*2. Paradox (against belief) :
# a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
# a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

*3. Interface Theory Accepted? :
Q: “Is Donald Hoffmans Interface theory of perception largely accepted? Or do most scientists think evolution has meant we perceive the world relatively accurately?”
A:It is not largely accepted, but it is also not largely rejected. It provides an interesting way to work with the world, so it sits there as most theories do, considered whenever perception is considered, but not driving how we consider it.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Hoffman-s-interface-theory-of-perception-accepted-in-neuroscience

One weakness in the 'desktop metaphor' is that at least a computer scientist will understand exactly the real operations that are being performed by the user interface, right down to the machine code and micro-electronics that underlie it. A scientist could explain comprehensively what the icons really are and how they work to achieve the user's purposes. I don't know if Hoffman can have any corresponding ontology of what the real connections are between perceiving subjects and objects that correspond to his metaphor of creatures manipulating icons. He says it's not real - compared to what? — Wayfarer

Hoffman's Interface theory is based on the mechanism of Darwinian adaptation. But I just came across a similar notion in Fire In The Mind, an overview of 20th century quantum science development. The book focused primarily on information coming out of quantum & complexity studies in Los Alamos and Santa Fe, New Mexico. In a chapter entitled The Democracy of Measurement --- after discussing the "collapse" (decoherence) of the wavefunction from superposition --- the author notes that the reason we observers normally see a classical reality, is that "the environment is monitoring everything all the time, collapsing wave functions, bringing hard-edged classicality out of quantum mushiness"*1. Therefore the Observer Problem only arises when scientists eliminate as many variables as possible (simplicity ; reductionism), in order to focus on, and measure, a single particle in an unnatural situation. But superposition is a Holistic property.

Outside the lab though, complexity rules. Hence, "In this democracy of measurement, we cannot really say which is the observer and which is the observed". Then, he quotes Wojciech Zurek, "Our senses did not evolve for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics. . . . And when nothing can be gained from prediction, there is no evolutionary reason for perception". Based on sensory perception, the scientist observer creates an abstract (unnatural) model of quantum scale reality; which seems weird compared to Newtonian physics. To me, that quote sounded a lot like Donald Hoffman's conclusion, but drawn from a different field of evidence*2. So, regardless of any later spooky idealistic interpretations, Hoffman's basic observation rings true for me. Therefore, I'm guessing he simply means that our abstract mental models are "not real" compared to concrete*3 classical reality. :smile:


*1. How Does Classical Reality Emerge From Quantum Environments? :
It's not possible to make a sharp division between scales with quantum rules for small things and classical ones for big things— that's the real point of the Schrödinger cat thought experiment. The world is quantum, all the way up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2019/08/07/how-does-classical-reality-emerge-from-quantum-environments/?sh=341498214526

*2. The Interface Theory of Perception :
Our perceptual capacities are products of evolution and have been shaped by natural selection. It is often assumed that natural selection favors veridical perceptions, namely, perceptions that accurately describe those aspects of the environment that are crucial to survival and reproductive fitness. However, analysis of perceptual evolution using evolutionary game theory reveals that veridical perceptions are generically driven to extinction by equally complex nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to the relevant fitness functions. Veridical perceptions are not, in general, favored by natural selection. This result requires a comprehensive reframing of perceptual theory, including new accounts of illusions and hallucinations. This is the intent of the interface theory of perception, which proposes that our perceptions have been shaped by natural selection to hide objective reality and instead to give us species-specific symbols that guide adaptive behavior in our niche.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn216

*3. Concrete : existing in a material or physical form; not abstract.
Note-- to me this definition implies that quantum physics --- as abstracted into mathematical equations by scientists --- is meta-physical. By "metaphysical", I mean non-physical mental ideas & concepts. Is that spooky, or what?

This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones. Something that both describes the content or workings of conscious awareness and the physical observable world - the fundamental interactions of the physical world paralleled with a theory of mind explanation, and where the dichotomy between them arises naturally from the same unifying dynamic. — Benj96

A prescient thought! About 15 years ago, I had a similar idea --- based, not on philosophical or religious treatises, but on Quantum & Information theories --- and eventually wrote a non-academic thesis to expand on the basic premise : that "mind stuff" is the essence of reality. In the late 20th century, quantum scientists began to equate Energy with Information*1. That is the reverse of Shannon's equation of meaningful Information with the dissipation of energy (Entropy). Just as the invisible intangible power behind all change (Energy) was equated by Einstein with tangible Matter (E=MC^2), I proposed to equate Energy with Information*2, and hence with Mind (the knower of information)*3.

That was the beginning of my attempt to solve the "Hard Problem" of how actively-seeking Sentient Minds could emerge from an insentient world of passive Matter pummeled by formless energy. Thesis postulate : the big C is merely a highly evolved form of Energy. In essence, the Big Bang Singularity (the Acorn) functioned like a computer. It processed pre-existing Causal Power into the creative & destructive activity we now call Energy & Entropy. And from that ongoing information-processing, great oaks and great minds would grow. Thenceforth, the program of Evolution was a "unifying dynamic", integrating raw data (bits of information) into complex assemblies with novel properties beyond those of the subordinate parts of whole systems.

The "dichotomy" between parts & wholes is bridged by the "unifying dynamic" of EnFormAction*4 : the act of creating novel forms of fundamental Information/Energy. The Form of a thing is its logical structure, that rational minds recognize as unique entities (things). So, that's my "theory of explanation" for how Minds emerged from Matter. I won't go further in this post, but the online thesis and blog expand on this foundation to explain other related scientific & philosophical mysteries. However, since you asked, I will mention that this thesis implies the pre-Big Bang existence of an Energy/Information Source, similar to what Plato called "Logos" and Aristotle called "First Cause" or "Prime Mover"*5.

Since the fundamental element of this theory is Information, I call my Programmer, the Enformer. The notion that mental information is the universal Cause is similar to Panpsychism. But, to avoid confusion with ancient "spiritual" notions of a Tyrant in heaven, I coined a variety of alternative labels for the axiomatic creator of our gradually maturing world. And to avoid implications with the ancient belief system of Atomism/Materialism, I gave the thesis a signifying name*6. :smile:


*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*2. Information is mental :
the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Note -- Knowledge & intelligence would be useless & meaningless without consciousness.

*3. Knower :
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguists, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. ___Wikipedia

*4. 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 everything 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 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

*5. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*6. Enformationism :
*** As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
*** As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

↪Tom Storm
He’s a cognitive scientist but as he doesn’t subscribe to materialism so it seems suggestive of idealism. I’m going to read that critical review Banno posted. — Wayfarer

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article by columnist Raymond Tallis that is critical of Hoffman's theory. He accuses Hoffman of "Darwinitis" : "the claim that evolution completely explains the human person". But I didn't get that impression from The Argument Against Reality. Instead, he uses the step-by-step heuristic*1 mechanism of adaptation to illustrate how an incomplete understanding of Reality could be "good enough" for practical purposes*2 . Presumably, long-suffering Evolution is not concerned with perfect adaptations, only workable solutions. Tallis also accuses Hoffman of "self-refutation". As a truth-seeker himself, Tallis is especially critical of Hoffman's "Fitness Beats Truth" theorem. But that's how evolution works, as opposed to the one step perfection of divine creation.

Despite the messiness of reality, Philosophers like clear-cut conceptual categories. So, Tallis's put-down of Hoffman's theory seems to assume that Idealism and Realism are mutually exclusive. And that is indeed how those worldviews are typically presented, by believers in one paradigm or the other. But my BothAnd worldview treats those clashing categories as just one of many apparent paradoxes in both Philosophy (e.g. Sorites) and Physics (e.g. wave/particle). We may not like those contradictions, but we have no choice but to learn to live with them. Whether the world appears Materialistic or Idealistic depends on how you frame your perspective. Either/Or thinkers are not able to deal with the complexities & contradictions of heuristic evolution, and its hybrid offspring*3.

I wasn't familiar with the Multimodal User Interface (MUI) theory, but after a quick scan it seems reasonable*4. Human perception receives inputs of raw Data from the environment, and converts it into the meaningful information that we call Concepts. The Data represent the concrete Reality outside the Mind in terms of abstract bits of energy (photons), but the brain transforms those "particles" of energy into meaningful integrated images that are not real, but merely maps of reality. It seems that Tallis is criticizing Hoffman for making a distinction between a useful Map and the actual Terrain. :smile:


*1. Heuristic : a trial & error process that produces many imperfect candidates, and selects the ones that survive the rigors of reality to serve as candidates for the next round of trials. This error-ridden method may never reach final perfection, but it gets closer at each step. For example, biological evolution, after billions of trials, has produced the human brain as the epitome of survival fitness. Yet, the brain is still subject to imperfect representations (optical illusions), some of which may be adaptive for pragmatic purposes.

*2. Practical Adaptations are Pragmatic, not Perfect, and not Ideal. They have short-term survival value. Likewise,pragmatic Science never reaches absolute Truth, but it does get incrementally closer to truth.

*3. How hybrids have upturned evolutionary theory :
Hybrids are not an evolutionary bug. They are a feature. That knowledge is changing the way people think about evolution.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/10/03/how-hybrids-have-upturned-evolutionary-theory

*4. Truth and fitness, they claim, are not rival strategies, but rather the same strategy, seen from different perspectives.
https://meaningfulparticipation.org/posts/multimodal-user-interface-theory

Ontological objective idealism has less weaknesses and unlikely to be undermined rather than subjective idealism which again leads to solipsism — invicta

Arguments for or against Idealism are complicated by the several definitions of the term, and variations within those definitions*1 *2. Since I have no formal training in philosophy, I'll have to stick to naive Idealism (the map is not the territory) and naive Realism (there is something out there that our senses are reporting). The objective aspect of both is our shared myths of reality : a> religious stories about an extrasensory spirit realm, and b> scientific reports about the invisible structure of the material world. From Kant to Quant we have been admonished that "Reality is not what you think it is"*3

So I have to be cautious about taking a firm stand on the mushy foundations of reality, especially as revealed by subatomic science. When I take a step on the ground, I expect that it will support my weight. But Quantum physics tells me -- and I only have this knowledge second hand -- that the atoms below are 99% empty space. So the "support" comes from counteracting weak forces between my feel-real shoes and the supposedly real ground. My intuitive model of the ground is solid, even though intellectually I "know" that it is porous. But my mental map of reality "works" most of the time. It's only quantum theorists who must work with an un-real mathematical model of reality, dominated by invisible forces instead of solid matter, and undermined by the interventions of observers .

The Objectivist Creed of modern science aspired to replace divine revelation for perfect knowledge of Reality with a collective consensus on what's what*4. And I am grateful for the harvest of practical insights, due to that divorce from religion. But the Objectivist Myth*5 was watered-down by the new statistical models (mathematical instead of material) of subatomic physics. What used to be fundamental to reality is now known to be a mere possibility prior to our measurement of its realness. Faced with such perversions of Classical Reality, what's a naive boy to do?

So, my personal position on Reality is like a wave/particle : BothAnd*6. The world is not Either Real or Ideal, but a blend of both mental & material aspects. Its wave-nature is continuous & statistical, while its particle-nature is discrete & physical. Reality is whatever works for me at the moment. Ideality is a possible state that exists only as a concept. Like the dream of seeing a man walking on the moon, ideas can become real. :smile:


*1. Objective idealism is a form of metaphysical idealism that accepts Naïve realism but rejects epiphenomenalist materialism, as opposed to subjective idealism denies that material objects exist independently of human perception and thus stands opposed to both realism and naturalism. ___Wikipedia

*2. What are the two types of idealism? :
Thus, the two basic forms of idealism are metaphysical idealism, which asserts the ideality of reality, and epistemological idealism, which holds that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the psychic or that its objects are conditioned by their perceptibility.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism
Note -- My interpretation of Hoffman's theory is neither subjective nor objective idealism, but merely that there are practical evolved limits on perception; so he advises : know thy limits.

*3. Reality is not what it seems :
Physicist Carlo Rovelli's book on quantum gravity
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/02/01/512798209/reality-is-not-what-we-can-see

*4. Copenhagen Interpretation :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments, there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*5, Objectivist Myth :
Scientific Objectivism replaces the prayerful Priest with an empirical Expert
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-objectivist-myth-of-knowing_fig1_254734289

*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. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

IS THE MOON REAL WHEN I'M NOT WALKING ON IT?

So, why can't brains do all their stuff without consciousness?
And why isn't a running internal combustion engine conscious? — bert1

I won't attempt to give a scientific answer to what is essentially a metaphysical question. But I do think the form of an answer will necessarily have something to do with Function. The purpose of a thing is not inherent in the thing, but is assigned to it by a user or observer. For example the function of an automobile is relative to the driver. The driver wants to move from here to there, and makes use of a mechanism, horse powered or ICE powered, to serve his need for conveyance. For the driver, the source of motive power -- and the details of its internal mechanism, organic or inorganic -- is irrelevant to the transportation function. The horse may be conscious, but its own needs are subordinate to the driver's.

Likewise, the function of a human brain is to collect incoming sensory data, then convert it into concepts & meanings that will serve the needs of the body, for survival and for thrival. According to Don Hoffman, the neural system of the brain processes incoming physical information, and transforms it (by magic?) into the metaphysical meanings that some call "consciousness" and others label "illusions". Those mental models are not real. but ideal. However, the serve the purposes of the Self by creating maps of reality for us to navigate by. A tangle of neurons will not serve as a map of the world. Even though the meta-physical map is not the territory, it serves the function of navigation*1 through the real world.

Service of needs & desires is also the Function of Consciousness : to make meanings that serve the intentions of the meta-physical Self (a mental model of the body/mind system). Therefore, like an engine on the garage floor, a brain in a vat, serves no transportation purpose, and being disconnected from the Self-system, is not functionally conscious. The neurons may continue to do "their stuff", but not the intentional stuff of the Self. :smile:


*1. Navigation : the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route.

What are some good ontological/logical arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

If, by "Idealism" you mean the rejection of Realism, all Either/Or logical arguments will go round in circles. You can't have overhead mental Ideality without its substrate of material Reality. And a Reality without sentient beings will have no Ideas. Reality knows itself via Ideality : the ability to abstract Concepts from Percepts ; to generalize Universals from Particulars ; to synthesize personal Meanings from impersonal Things. Reality & Ideality go together like matter & aether.

That's why I have resorted to an Intuitive argument that I call BothAnd. For example, Cogito Ergo Sum implies that I am both Mind and Body; both Knower and Known. We can have isolated abstractions only in imagination. :smile:

PS__Your appellation of "zero implies everything" sounds like a BothAnd concept. "Nothing" is meaningless without Something to relate it to. Computer logic is based on the fundamental relationship between All (1) and Nothing (0). Likewise, the concept of "Zero" is merely the opposite end of the statistical spectrum of all possibilities (100%). All things are relative : nothing exists in isolation.

"Nothing exists in isolation. In fact, all beings and phenomena exist only because of their relationship with other beings or phenomena.” ― Jeff Ourvan, Quora

BothAnd :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain. Quantum theory is a materialistic version of non-duality. It views the world as made of continuous mathematical Fields of potential. Within their defining field, pairs of quantum particles may become entangled, and act as one, or vice-versa, fluid waves may also be discrete particles . Unfortunately, such BothAnd (wave/particle) constructs are difficult for our macro-sensing brains to imagine.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

Yes. Philosophy shouldn't be pinned-down to a narrow job description. Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens, but he focused on one-man-at-a-time. His teachings were more like self-development than political or scientific problem-solving. However, Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) to Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". And other philosophers, through the years, have focused their "problem seeking"*1 on particular aspects of the quest for General Wisdom (know-that) and Practical Knowledge (know-how).

For example book-bound Marx asserted that, “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Ironically, if there is a typical personality type for philosophers, it seems to be Introverted or Introspective. Which is not well-suited to changing what's wrong with the world, via political revolutions. Nevertheless, the strong words of bookish thinkers can indeed inspire others to, not just point-out the problems, but to fix them. Yet a forum of brainy introverts talking to shy recluses is not likely to de-constipate the "plugged-up plumbing" of the natural or cultural milieu. :joke:


*1. In his 1977 book Problem Seeking, architect William Pena observed : "you can't solve a problem unless you know what it is". He didn't mean you should go out looking for trouble. Instead, his book on Architectural Programming presented methods for discovering the underlying (fundamental)*2 problems that motivate people to spend time & money to build something new, rather than to hold-on to something old. Those step-by-step procedures are essentially the same as Philosophical & Scientific methods --- e.g. analysis & synthesis.

*2. Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. ___Wiki

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy, — Art48

I too have been disappointed with much of Modern Philosophical Posturing, as compared to Ancient Wisdom Seeking. Especially the linguistic nit-picking of Postmodern academia. Fortunately for me, I have no formal training in philosophy, except for Logic, as a math requirement. Regarding the "intellectual engines of modern civilization", most of my amateur philosophizing is based on the paradoxes dug-up by scientists on the cutting-edge of understanding, such as Quantum & Information theories.

In the Feb/Mar 23 issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". "Science", as the name implies is in the business of obtaining practical knowledge from the real (material) world. But "Philosophy" is more like "Art", as an expression of ideas & impressions about the ideal (mental) world. Of course, the art of philosophy is supposed to be disciplined enough to sort-out the useful (meaningful) wheat from the useless (trivial) chaff. :smile:

"Finite and infinite are concepts that have significance only in relation to space and time, in that both are infinite, i.e., endless, as well as infinitely divisible. — spirit-salamander

"Infinity" defined as a quantitative measure is a common stumbling block for philosophical forays into transcendent topics. If the context is a space-time bounded world, then an objective quantitative definition is appropriate. But if the context is unbounded open-ended Eternity-Infinity, a subjective qualitative interpretation is necessary*1.

When we are talking about a "demoted deity" in the form of the real world, it's OK to speak of parts relative to the whole. But, if that Creative Power existed prior to the Big-Bang --- before the emergence of finite space-time from a hypothetical undefined realm of statistical possibility/probability --- then the physical limits of space & time do not apply, and the whole is likewise undefinable and indivisible.

Besides, space & time are abstractions that exist only in minds, not in matter*2. Space & Time are imaginary measuring sticks that we overlay on the material world in order to provide chunks of meaning for the mind. Even the beginning-of-time is a human milepost that we use to mark the distinction between Time & Eternity.

As you said, a Space-time deity would be finite in scope, and almost infinitely divisible. Such is the mystery of math, with its never-ending numberline. In that case, Infinity-plus-One is still Infinity. That makes sense only because "infinity" is an ideal definition, not a real physical thing. Likewise, the gap-filling deity we imagine as a defining context for the open-ended Big Bang theory, is an ideal concept, that we may never know in reality. If that hypothetical gap-filler is also the Cause & Creator of reality, then all of its defining properties are abstract qualities. :smile:


*1. Is infinity a quantity? :
Good question. No. Infinity is a limit, which can't be a quantity, and a bound, which can be a quantity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-infinity-a-quantity

*2, How is space time an illusion? :
Locations in space and time, hence, have no identity and can be said to exist only as mathematical conveniences. Quantum theory suggests that locality is an illusion, a byproduct of the decoherence that occurs between quantum waves so that nonlocal effects are damped while local effects are reinforced.
https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/space-and-time-may-be-illusions-1aa71e8de03e

[Title of the OP was changed because it was misleading. It suggested that I was making a positive argument for a God who no longer exists.]
I present a challenge to theism (It is only for dialectical reasons that the challenging argument clings to some basic assumptions of theism): — spirit-salamander

I appreciate the clarification. It allows for philosophical dialog, without getting into political posturing. I too have constructed an alternative god-model for my own worldview, and I enjoy sharing views without getting into condemnations. However, some materialist posters see no need for a god-posit at all. As Feynman advised, in order to avoid feckless hypothetical speculations, "just shut-up and calculate". They accept reality as it appears on the surface, and don't try to look for underlying principles that are not empirically verifiable. But this is a philosophical forum, so we don't calculate, we speculate.

I agree that traditional Theism is inappropriate for our modern world. Therefore, it is indeed due for a philosophical & scientific update. For example, my god-model terminology derives mostly from 21st century Quantum and Information Theories. Moreover, as an alternative to traditional religious Theism, my Deistic god-model is a non-intervening abstract philosophical principle. That's not a concept to inspire hope in the down-trodden masses. Just a way to make sense of some paradoxes & contradictions of our amazing, but imperfect world. Here, I take your list of postulates as an outline for presenting some of my own ideas. As you will see, my theory departs from yours mainly in the last item.


A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.
*** Since the physical world is limited by Entropy, its time to exist must also be limited.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.
*** The Act of Creation is confirmed by BB theory. Only the nature of the Actor remains to be updated. The Genesis myth was based on experience with ruling tyrants in ancient Mesopotamia. Surely, we can come up with a more modern notion of creation and causation.

B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible.
*** Yes, but creation from infinite Potential is not only possible but scientifically credible, since materialistic classical Physics was undermined by statistical Quantum Physics. Mathematics is no-thing, yet it includes all possible values. And the basic elements of physical reality (particles) seem to exist in a never-land state of suspended existence, until realized by an observation. Quantum Fields, Virtual Particles, and Superposition are about as close to nothingness as you can get within Space-time. But they are full of possibilities.

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.
*** Yes, transformation is what energy does. And Energy could be construed as "transcendent substance" prior to its transformation into mundane Matter. In its Potential states of position, charge, "zero point", etc. Energy is invisible & intangible. For example, a Virtual particle has no charge, but after transformation into a Real particle, it may possess the causal property of charge. We only know that ghostly Energy has passed through, like a tornado in the night, by observing the after-effects.

C 1. God is absolutely simple. Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.
*** Simple = unified or integrated as in a holistic Singularity. I interpret the Big Bang evidence as implying that the Energy Source of Creation was/is a complete infinite Whole, within which at least one Holon (our world) exists. In that case the Source is also the Origin, and being transcendent, a universal Principle instead of a space-time Thing. Note, if necessary, I'll address the definitions of Potential & Holons in another post.

C 2. Accordingly, He has no parts to offer for transformation. Rather, He would have to give Himself completely for this purpose. In fact, in His simplicity, He is so much of one piece that He would be entirely the power that would serve to transform.
*** This supposes a physically limited God. If the whole from which our world emerged was physical/material, it would have a limited supply of substance from which to construct a world. But, if the Whole consists of infinite metaphysical Potential, it would not be diminished by the transformation of infinite Possibility into finite Actualities. That's what happens when a quantum system in statistical superposition transforms into the specific state we know as a Particle. But the infinite Potential (Energy) remains at 100% (second law of thermodynamics).

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe.
*** I prefer to think of the Creator as a non-physical Principle, similar to abstract Logos. and an infinite Potential, like Chaos (infinite being without finite order).
The math of Statistics assumes a range from 0% to 100%. But, since the math is Ideal, it is not subject to physical laws. You can subtract 10% from 100% over & over without making the whole any less complete.
Quantum Physics uses the concept of an Infinite Potential Well to describe the unlimited mathematical range within physical particles could possibly exist.


PS__I suspect that your demoted deity theory is similar in motivation to my own Whole/Holon theory : to fill the god-gap in Big Bang theory. However, I label my god-model as PanEnDeism, instead of Pantheism or Pandeism.

Non-supernatural Theism :
The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe. Historically, for versions of this theory where God has ceased to exist or to act as a separate and conscious entity, some have used the term pandeism, which combines aspects of pantheism and deism, to refer to such a theology. A similar concept is panentheism, which has the creator become the universe only in part, but remain in some other part transcendent to it, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe

↪Gnomon
It seems to me that you have both a World and a Programmer who made it. What is the space that contains them both ? — green flag

The "space" that contains the program "world" is the mind of the "programmer". It's a dual-aspect Monism. No distinctions, no information, no meaning, no philosophy. A monism without defining distinctions would be a socked-in fog. :smile: