But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. — Gnomon
So more intuitive than mathematical? What is gained by sacrificing full rigour here? — apokrisis

What-is-gained is, as you say, a notion that is "more intuitive than mathematical". I am not a mathematician. So, as an amateur philosopher, with no formal training, if I tried to present my Information thesis in mathematical terms, I would be out of my depth. That's why I have to depend on links to specialists, for those who desire a more rigorous treatment. Please click on some of my links for "full rigour". :nerd:

Of course telling your own tale in your own words is fair enough if you just want to arrive at your own synthesis of where modern science has got to. — apokrisis

Yes. I'm not pretending to be an expert in the science of Information. So, I merely use the speculations & conclusions of scientific professionals as evidence to support my own amateur philosophical conjectures. For example, the link below agrees with my contention that "information is the fundamental building block of the universe". If you have any technical questions, please contact the author. :smile:

New experiment could confirm the fifth state of matter in the universe :
Dr. Vopson's previous research suggests that information is the fundamental building block of the universe and has physical mass. . . .
He even claims that information could be the elusive dark matter that makes up almost a third of the universe. ___Physicist Dr. Melvin Vopson
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-state-universe.html

IS THIS RIGOROUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?

The issue is then how do your recover what folk think they mean by meaning, consciousness, mind, intentionality, agency, etc, from an infodynamic perspective? . . .
The theory isn't complete until it is the meaningfulness of signs all the way down, coupled to the meaningless of material contingency all the way up. — apokrisis

Since "infodynamics" is based on Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of Entropy & Thermodynamics, I tend to avoid that approach, in favor of a more general & less physical interpretation. Infodynamics may be a useful way to think about Information as a scientific concept. But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. Unfortunately, there are a few nagging gnats that view every topic from a reductive/scientific/materialistic perspective. I try to ignore them, but sometimes I have to swat at them, as they buzz in my face. It's OK though. They are a minor nuisance. :cool:

Enformy (analogy to thermodynamics):
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and Mind.
BothAnd Blog, post 28
Note -- In thermodynamics, what I call "Enformy" (philosophical concept) is known as "Negentropy" (physical term).

But to be a success, this reduction to "atoms of form" has to incorporate more than just a process metaphysics to take the edge off the hard materialism (that wants to oppose itself to the fluffy idealism). — apokrisis

Yes. When John A. Wheeler spoke of "bits" of Information, he was metaphorically imagining them as "atoms of form". Yet, "bits" by themselves have little-to-no influence on the real world. It's only in the corporate form of Systems or Wholes, and their related Processes, that atoms of information add-up to the dynamic physical swarms that we call physical objects.

It will take someone better informed on Semiology to interpret the various meanings of bits of information all-the-way-down and back-up again. As an amateur, I have to avoid getting bogged-down in philosophical technicalities that are over my head. Would you like to volunteer for the job of Information Semilologist? :smile:

So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. — Gnomon
Yes. And that is matched to? And the third thing that is a meaningful balance of the opposing forces of spontaneity and constraint is being explicitly offered in the theory where? — apokrisis

Good question. I may get into the details of that dynamic "balance" in a later post. But it's all about creative Enformy counter-balancing destructive Entropy. :smile:

Essence is "substance" in the secondary sense, notice "universal", "genus", "subject". That is how secondary substance is defined. In the primary sense, substance is defined as the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. But when he was trying to define his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design?

Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence? :brow:


hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.

Two kinds of Structure :
1. mathematical structure is an imaginary (idealized) pattern of relationships (links) without the nodes.
2. physical structure is the actual nodes arranged into a pattern resembling the mental design.

Fair enough. But remember Aristotle's dualism was of matter and form (hyle-morphe), not matter and spirit. — Wayfarer

Yes. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I place Hyle in the modern category of matter (physical substance), and "morphe" or "form" in the class of In-form-ation (mental -- design, pattern, meaning). And my thesis interprets the ancient notion of "spirit" (psyche, anima, atman, elan vital) as various interpretations of Energy as Causation & Trans-form-ation. Ultimately, everything in the space-time world is a unique form of shape-shifting EnFormAction (power + design + causation). Therefore, "spirit" is just one of many ways to characterize the particular expressions of Potential Platonic "Form", and Actual Aristotelian "Form". So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. :joke:

EnFormAction :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
BothAnd Blog, post 60

SAME EN-FORM-ACTION ALL THE WAY DOWN

I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer

I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine for over 50 years. So, I'm well-informed about Pseudoscience & Paranormal pros & cons. SI is mainly focused on pop-sci UFO & Bigfoot controversies, while Skeptic seems to be more interested in the philosophical angle of Science versus Metaphysics.

Shermer is definitely on the side of physical Science, but he gives counter-paradigm proponents, such as Kastrup, the benefit of the doubt, as long as they don't stray too far from "established facts". He usually seems open to alternative interpretations of non-empirical speculative science, especially Quantum queerness. Which is also how I try to approach such debatable ideas. My own worldview is based on avant-garde scientific concepts, that have not yet made their way into the textbooks. An early deviation from the materialistic model was John A. Wheeler's "it from bit", which called into question the fundamental element or essence of physics. His heretical opinions about Materialist assumptions were tolerated only because his scientific credentials were impeccable ; yet "it from bit" remains a footnote in mainstream textbooks.

Even Einstein was disturbed by some of the metaphysical & idealistic implications of his own paradigm-busting ideas of Relativity & Light Quanta. But, he also insisted, that for him, imagination is more important than knowledge. And in that sense, Enformationism remains imaginary, since verification of nonphysical phenomena is still difficult. However some very smart people are also thinking along the same lines. I can take some comfort in knowing that someone as perceptive as Kastrup, has had his innovative ideas rejected as "voodoo" by prominent scientists.

My own experience with labels of "woo-mongering" have also caused me to reconsider, not the foundations of my worldview, but the way I express concepts that challenge the prevailing paradigm of Materialism, as its presumptions are gradually undermined by bits of quantum information. :nerd:

A Super-Simple, Non-Quantum Theory of Eternal Consciousness "
In “Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?”, recently posted by Scientific American, Kastrup contends that quantum mechanics—as well as cognitive science, which suggests that minds construct rather than passively mirroring reality--undermines the assumption that the physical world exists independently of our observations. He calls for a new paradigm that makes mind “the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves.”
___John Horgan, Scientific American magazine
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/a-super-simple-non-quantum-theory-of-eternal-consciousness/

It From Bit :
"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." ___John A, Wheeler, physicist
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/

As for the 'trolls' - not all your critics are trolling. — Wayfarer

On a philosophical forum, I expect rational criticism. That's the whole point of presenting controversial (or idiosyncratic) topics for discussion. Fortunately, only few on this forum are trolls, who engage in passionate bullying instead of dispassionate reasoning. I assume they think they are defending the "revealed truth" of materialistic science (Scientism) from the falsehoods of casuistic Spiritualism. 180proveit likes to refer to non-physical notions as "donut holes without the dough". But I prefer another analogy : the Materialist worldview is like a Zombie : a body without a mind. The trolls also seem to equate "Metaphysics" with Christian Theology, whereas I associate "Meta-Physics" with the "wisdom" of Aristotle's follow-up to The Physics.

I deliberately chose the name Enformationism to indicate an inter-connecting bridge between Spiritualism and Materialism. That consilient notion is based on the recent discoveries indicating that Information (mind-stuff, knowledge, ideas, etc) is essentially the perception of logical Relationships (mathematical Ratios). Shannon himself related Information with Energy in the notion of Entropy. Consequently, some pioneering scientists are touting the concept that Matter, Energy & Information are different forms of the same essential "substance" (in the Aristotelian sense).

What the ancient sages called "spirit" is what we now know as "energy" : invisible forces & causes. And what the early philosophers called "matter" is now known to be merely a different form of Energy. And, in Thermodynamics, Energy is defined in terms of Ratios (relationships), which is also the basis of Reasoning (rational thought). So, I perceive a three-way relationship between causal Energy, substantial Matter, and rational Mind, which is an emergent function of energetic Life. This equation of Causation with Matter and Mind is indeed idiosyncratic and eccentric, in the sense that it is not yet a mainstream "fact" in scientific textbooks.

I came to this BothAnd (matter & mind) worldview late in life. So, I pursue my thesis on internet forums instead of in college classrooms. I don't expect to get any formal recognition for my minor contributions to Science & Philosophy. So, I have to be content with sharing the news with a few open minds on this forum, and on my blog. It's not a religion, but it serves as a sort of philosophical replacement for the religious worldview I was indoctrinated with as a child. Unfortunately, with no Bible to guide me, I'm like a child wandering in the wilderness. This forum provides feedback to help me get my bearings. :brow:


Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’. A comment on these descriptions will help to clarify Aristotle’s topic. . . . .
In Metaphysics Α.1, Aristotle says that “everyone takes what is called ‘wisdom’ (sophia) to be concerned with the primary causes (aitia) and the starting-points (or principles, archai)” (981b28), and it is these causes and principles that he proposes to study in this work.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Information, Matter and Energy – a non-linear world-view :
Hence, nature can no longer be interpreted by means of matter and energy alone - a
third component is required: information.
https://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/paper/biosem-madl-2006.pdf

I get that. I've always understood it as your own invention, a brew or a stew or superscientific postreligious goo, and I like the taste of my poetry too. I've challenged you not because I resent such a harmless creation (I respect he creativity), but only philosophically for (in my eyes) being rather complacent about the concept of 'mind.' As I said initially, my nudges are from a place of 'semantic pragmatism' that generally finds folks way to satisfied where I scents ambiguity. Mind and matter? These tour in the path dump chew gather. — lll

I'm not sure what the "it" refers to in the quote above, which speaks of "universal Mind" & "PanEnDeism". Neither of which are my "own invention". Maybe you are disingenuously casting aspersions on my personal philosophical thesis : Enformationism. But I doubt that you know anything about it, other than that it sounds vaguely New Agey & manifestly Metaphysical. If you were to look into it though, you'd find that the premise was inspired by leading-edge scientific theories, and not by any far-out philosopher or giggling guru. So, in that sense, it is my "own invention".

Speaking of “inventive” ridicule, your “superscientific postreligious goo” is at least an improvement on 180prove-it's worn-out “woo”. His post-scientism sophistry takes the form of supercilious pseudo-philosophical arguments. As an incitement though, "woo" is not as effective as "n*gger". Moreover, ad hominems are so pre-medieval.

So, I'll share with you a new-to-me term of abuse : “Schizotypy”. It is an unproven psychological label (type) for odd or eccentric behavior or beliefs. But it sounds like "just-plain-crazy". I found that word in a Skeptical Inquirer article about UFO & alien invasions. “Everyday experiences, for those with schizotypal tendencies may cross an ethereal line into an unusual, idiosyncratic universe of occult importance and hidden truth”. Do you think that kind of psychological typing is "complacent about the concept of 'mind' "? Be forewarned, if you sling that schizo-sh*t at me, it will go right over my pointy little head.

The Sci-Inq article admits that “all human cultures possess beliefs in the paranormal”. And “paranormal” could apply to any novel idea that is counter-intuitive or statistically-atypical or paradigmatically unorthodox. So you could use that technical-sounding calumny to belittle anyone whose ideas you don't like, and don't want to seriously engage-with, using Philosophical Methodology . :joke:


Schizotypy : a theoretical concept that posits a continuum of personality characteristics and experiences, ranging from normal dissociative, imaginative states to extreme states of mind related to psychosis

Philosophical Methodology :
The questions in philosophical methodology do not primarily concern which philosophical claims are true, but how to determine which ones are true. . . .
The methods of philosophy differ in various respects from the methods found in the natural sciences. One important difference is that philosophy does not use experimental data obtained through measuring equipment like telescopes or cloud chambers to justify its claims.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology

PS__The same Skeptical Inquirer magazine (mar/apr 2022) has an article on the Scientific Method. Regarding "replicability", it says "the goal of science is to understand Nature". But lest you forget, the goal of Philosophy is to understand Culture, which as you noted, includes the "ambiguity" of the human Mind. Which can blithely string together offbeat arguments such as :"These tour in the path dump chew gather." Comprende?

But I would say that makes the ground of reality neither objective nor subjective, that these are the poles of the nature of experienced reality; rather that it transcends the self-other distinction which is the fundamental condition of embodiment (c.f. Buddhism) — Wayfarer

Yes. In my hypothetical worldview the "ground of reality" is a singular timeless spaceless whole, which encompasses all possibilities in the form of Platonic Forms or un-formed Potentials. So it is not characterized by the particulars & polarities of human experience. But then, I have no personal experience with Ideal perfection. And, I only think outside the "fundamental condition of embodiment" for the sake of philosophical argument. For all practical purposes, I am a materialist & realist. For the "trolls" though, that non-creedal position statement may sound oxymoronic.

However, on this philosophical forum, rather than take them for granted, we still debate what's "real" and what's "material". The only way I know to reconcile disagreements on such impractical questions is to put them into a larger context. To view the variety of things & beings against a hypothetical featureless background : the Ground of Being. I suppose even the Buddha must have been forced to assume such an Ideal perfect state, by which to compare the ups & downs of reality. Yet he advised his followers to avoid becoming entangled in metaphysical speculations & derogations, as some of us on this forum do. In order to maintain peace-of-mind though, we must become tough-minded. Can we draw strength from the Universal Mind, or do we just develop mental calluses from butting our individual minds together? :wink:

I don't think Kastrup is theistic. — Wayfarer

Nor am I. I'm not sure what niche Kastrup puts his own idealistic philosophy in, but my idiosyncratic philosophical position could also be labeled as "bottom-up Panpsychism", or as "PanEnDeism". Which are not necessarily religious in nature. Again though, the "trolls" like to put such mind-centric worldviews into some conventional conceptual box, so they can more easily trash them. :cool:

This sounds like a variety of deism. The philosophical problem, which I don't think you've address, is the trust you put in the word 'mind' to do so much lifting for you. — lll

Again, your perception is accurate, but your interpretation is off-target. My personal worldview is similar to Deism, but more specifically PanEnDeism. So, the "Universal Mind" is infinite & eternal, hence prior to, and outside of the space-time world. PED is an abstruse philosophical concept, not a popular religion. Unlike, the Abrahamic god, the hypothetical (mythical) deity of PED does not interfere in the workings of the world. Instead, like a Programmer, S/he created an evolutionary program, stored it in the Singularity, and executed it in the Big Bang. Metaphorically, you and I are avatars in the game, living by our wits, not by faith.

This is not a scriptural revelation, but a reasonable interpretation of 21st century science, especially Quantum & Information theories. However, if you have negative emotions about any god-concept, you can imagine the PED as a material Multiverse, or tower-of-turtles Many Worlds, or a Big Ball of creative Power, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever floats your boat. In any case the Energy & Laws that enform the material stuff, necessarily existed before the Beginning. Nobody knows for sure what caused our space-time universe to pop-out of who-knows-what-or-where. And nobody is going to condemn you to hell for denying the existence of a mystery that predates your world of experience. We are all just guessing here. :joke:

Panendeism : holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time, but does not intervene in its self-organizing evolution.

Primary substance, as defined by Aristotle is the individual, the particular, such as the individual man, or individual horse. Secondary substance is the species such as "man" or "horse". — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't claim to be an Aristotle scholar, but I got my definition from a philosophical dictionary. In the definition below, I don't concern myself with the confusing "qualifications". Instead, I interpret the distinction in a way that makes sense for my Enformationism thesis. The term "substance" today is usually defined as the material from which a thing is constructed : as a sculpture from marble or clay. But, in my thesis, I'm more interested in the mental or metaphysical concept (Platonic Form or Essence) of which the sculpture is an imitation. So I typically use "substance" to mean Real Matter, and "essence" to mean Ideal Mind. See below. :smile:

PS__Likewise, Information has "qualifications" that can be confusing if not carefully defined. In essence it is Ideal & Universal, but in particular, it can become Causal Energy, or Material Object. I didn't just make this up. It's where Information Theory has developed : that shape-shifting Information is the essence of reality : matter, energy & mind.

How does Aristotle define substance? :
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html

7. Substance and Essence :
One might have thought that this question had already been answered in the Categories. There we were given, as examples of primary substances, an individual man or horse, . . . Ζ.3 begins with a list of four possible candidates for being the substance of something: essence, universal, genus, and subject. . . . Aristotle’s preliminary answer (Ζ.4) to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence, but there are important qualifications.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Essence :
In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature” of a thing such that it possesses certain necessary, metaphysical characteristics or properties in contrast with merely accidental or contingent ones.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence

The notion of noble Lincoln is the essence (primary substance) of which the marble is the material (secondary substance) :
THE SHAPE IS NOT THE FORM

Does Kastrup think E & M are not correlated mathematically? What does the "=" sign in E=MC^2 mean? — Gnomon
He does, and of course that's true. But I was leery of the 'intangible energy' idea, as if that amounts to anything more than or other than physics. But I'm considering the idea that even the humble "=" sign has no physical equivalent, it's a purely rational idea, but without it maths couldn't even begin. — Wayfarer

I assume you got that idea from Kastrup's Materialism is Baloney, which I haven't read. But, I have read The Idea of the World. His worldview seems to be similar to my own Enformationism, in which Information (meaningful relationships) is the Ontological Primitive. However, I locate that "primitive" in the mind of the Programmer, not in the multiple minds of her avatars or creatures. Therefore, what seems "tangible" to me, should also seem real to anybody else.

In other words, Reality is objective, not Subjective. So, what I experience as Energy or Matter is actually out there. It's only my interpretation, my model of reality, that exists subjectively in my mind. Yet, we all -- energy, matter, & me -- exist in the imaginative Mind of God (the Enformer), so to speak. In which case, the "Idea of the World" is generated by the Cosmic Mind, not by me. Consequently, I have to take Einstein's word for it that Energy is mathematically (logically) correlated with Mass, but neither is itself a material object, but merely a Potential for causation and for materialization. :nerd:


Do we know what matter is? :
That leaves the question of mind vs. matter. What is primary? What is, in Kastrup’s words, the “ontological primitive”? Rovelli says it is all relations, yet there can be no relations that we know of without stuff. Relations don’t operate in a void. What is the stuff that makes relationships work? Kastrup says it is mind. That mind, or Mind, generates the perturbations of energy in the medium of mind and we call those perturbations the stuff of reality.
https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/do-we-know-what-matter-is-f05a335ac874

due to the materialistic bias of our common language. — Gnomon
Let's not forget the intense mentalistic bias of forum philosophers who won't/can't ingest any criticisms thereof, attached for the usual reasons to go stories. — lll

Your perception is accurate, even though your aim is off. This forum does have two strategic factions : mental emphasis vs physical emphasis. The pro-Metaphysics posters are talking about human Culture, while the anti-Metaphysics posters are focused on non-human Nature. The "pros" typically have no problem with Natural Science, but as appropriate on a Philosophy forum, they are more interested in Cultural phenomena (e.g. beliefs & practices). So, they necessarily have a "mentalistic bias". Culture is the specifically human aspect of the natural world.

Human culture is difficult to study by means of the reductive scientific method. That's why Psychology and Sociology essentially gave-up on trying to emulate Hard Science, and remain mostly philosophical & holistic in their methods (i.e. induction & argument ; systems instead of parts), and standards of evidence (e.g. logical coherence instead of physical replication). Philosophical theories are also non-falsifiable in that there are no mental "Black Swans" to refute a hypothesis. Testing of Philosophical theories is logical instead of physical. Unfortunately, you can lead a person to Truth, but you can't make him believe it.

Therefore, Philosophy can be characterized as "non-science", but not as "pseudo-science". Because it does not pretend to be producing empirical evidence for physical theories. It's merely trying to produce reasonable models of intangible human concepts. So, the standards of evidence for Philosophy are different from those of Science. That's why your "criticisms thereof" are not "ingested". They may be food-for-physical-belly, but not nourishment-for-metaphysical-thought. Your error is what Popper called the "Demarcation Problem". Hence, you are shooting at pseudo-science, and hitting thin air. :cool:


What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science? :
In general, the soft sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989

Human Culture vs Nature :
Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, art.
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/PH/CulturalAwareness/CulturalAwareness2.html

Popper's Falsifiability Theory :
* Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment.
* Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method, by replacing induction with the falsification principle.
* The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
* For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.

Demarcation Problem :
For Popper the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms “non-science” (e.g., logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Induction vs Deduction :
Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it. . . .
Deduction is a form of reasoning whereby the premises of the argument guarantee the conclusion.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Induction_(philosophy)

Note -- Philosophy does not speak of physical Reality, but of mental Ideality.

The problem with this is that you are lacking substance here. Meaningful relations between weightless things does not magically create a "massy world". Substance is what gives mass its inertia, its resistance to change, the ability to support you when you walk. So for example, if the ground was composed of meaningful relations of weightless things, we need to know why these relations are resistant to change. It is this resistance to change which produces the appearance of weight, and the massy world. But telling me that this is the result of meaningful relations doesn't tell me anything, unless you can say why some relations are more resistant to change than others. Does this mean that some are more meaningful than others? Why are some relations more meaningful than others? — Metaphysician Undercover

Good questions! But difficult to answer, due to the material bias of language. So, we resort to debatable analogies between metaphysical Concepts & physical Objects.

Aristotle made a distinction between two kinds of "substance". : 1. Primary Substance -- Being qua Being, or 2. Secondary Substances -- species & genera (i.e. specific instances of Being). As I interpret those categories, Primary Substance is Essence (massless potential), but Secondary Substance is Matter (massy existence). The earthy "ground" I take for granted is Secondary & sensory, hence no mystery. But, the "substance" that "miraculously" gives mass to matter is Primary & abstract. Actually, Mass is merely a different form of Energy : energy transforms into mass, which is the property of matter that is mysteriously attracted to other masses via gravity (L. heaviness).

In my thesis terminology, Primary Substance is the Power to Enform, to give form to the formless. In Einstein's equation, that mysterious ability to create Mass from the massless is "magical" Energy. And according to current Information theories, Energy (potential) is merely one form of generic Information -- the same non-stuff that creates Meaning in a brain. So, shape-shifting Information does seem to be magical -- but it's also material, and that's what brings massless ideas back down to earth.

Relations that are "resistant to change" are eternal & infinite, like Primary Substance : the essence of Being. Meaningful Relations are mental analogies. Physical Relations are thermodynamic ratios.

"More meaningful" in this context can be understood as higher Valence. In a thermodynamic ratio, the relative valences are expressed in higher & lower abstract numbers representing degrees of energy content (hot/cold). But, in mental evaluations, numerator & denominator are evaluated in terms of significance to Self (good/bad).

Any more questions? :smile:


Ratio :the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

Valence : the combining power of an element ; a value that adds-up

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Is information equivalent to energy? :
The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. — Gnomon
:down: No, you're on the wrong track here. And that's not even supported by the post you provide from Bernardo Kastrup (of whom I'm a keen reader, having just finished his Schopenhauer.) — Wayfarer

I was not referring to Kastrup's article in the excerpt above. It was a top of the head remark.

Does Kastrup think E & M are not correlated mathematically? What does the "=" sign in E=MC^2 mean? :chin:

I believe you'll find it hard to make sense of 'cognitive relationships' without dragging in the so-called 'physical' and various semantic conventions. — lll

Yes. I know that all too well. Human languages are derived from commonsense (sensory) experience. That's why we talk about private-subjective-Mental-concepts in terms of analogies to public-objective-Material-things, Much of the ranting on this forum is a result of mistaken terminology, That's also why I spend (waste?) so much verbiage on defining terms, and defining definitions, and linking to other's definitions.

Ironically, even spooky counter-intuitive (not common sense) Quantum Physics is expressed in material metaphors. For example, a Quantum "Field" is an intangible mathematical concept, but scientists describe it in metaphorical as-if language. Note, in the definitions below, that the term "Field" in physics is defined in terms of another material thing : a "Region". Likewise, my Information-based terminology is misconstrued by the "Trolls" (as I teasingly call them) as-if I'm making a scientific claim about a physical Substance*1, instead of a Philosophical hypothesis about the imaginary Realm (or Field, or Region) we call "Consciousness" or "Mind".

That inherent materiality of language makes discussion of immaterial topics confusing. "Mind" is defined below in terms of an indivisible material substance (like a Democratean atom). But another way to define the "subjective Mind" is as a holistic-system-of-brain-&-its-functions, that when divided into parts, no longer functions mentally. Chop off a piece of brain, and it may still have some neuronal activity, but its cognitive mental functions don't work in the absence of the rest of the system. A mind without a body/brain is metaphorically*2 known as a Ghost. We can imagine such a thing, but mustn't take as real.

The early 20th century Quantum scientists had the same difficulty in describing the atoms they were dissecting in the lab. They likened it to "plum pudding", and to "solar system", and to a "cloud". But all "likens" are metaphors compared to something detectable by the physical senses. Yet Mind & Consciousness are detectable only via rational inference. Hence, the "other minds" problem.

Like those pioneers of Quantum Theory, the attempts of paradigm-busting Information Theorists -- to discuss their Holistic Systems theory of fundamental Information -- are often victims of the misinterpretation of misplaced concreteness, due to the materialistic bias of our common language. :nerd:


*1. Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
Note -- "Form" is the immaterial essence, or defining principle of a thing, while "Matter" is the clay from which it is constructed. In-Form-ation is a meaningful (or metaphorical) projection in the theatre-of-the-mind that represents a real (or metaphorical) object in the world outside the body/brain.

*2. A metaphor is a mental representation of a thing or concept. It's an abstract symbol. It may be stated as-if a Fact, but is not to be taken literally. Semiology is the science of abstractions that exist only in Minds. So, it too is plagued with misconceptions, due to the limitations of language.

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

But language too is material! :
Language is infused with materiality and should therefore not be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-017-9540-0

Field :
1. an expanse of open or cleared ground, especially a piece of land suitable or used for pasture or tillage.
2. field, in physics, a region in which each point has a physical quantity associated with it

Region :
1. an area or division, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.

MInd :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Element :
1. An element is a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances through chemistry.

What Is an Atom Like? :
Since the atom was discovered, many theories tried to depict what an atom is like. They have likened it to a plum pudding, a small ball, and even a tiny solar system. Perhaps, it is also imagined as a core with a cloud of small and light particles surrounding it.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/what-is-an-atom-like/

A Democratean Metaphor :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181641

MIND IS A METAPHOR FOR BRAIN FUNCTION

Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted. — Gnomon
Not at all. The Stoics, Epicureans and Atomists were materialists. Materialism has always existed as part of philosophy - even in ancient India. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I said "physicalism" was not an issue for them. They seemed to assume that Reality was both Material & Spiritual. But they didn't worry about how a spiritual Mind could emerge from a Material substrate. They just assumed that "god did it".

Only when our improving understanding of Matter found no obvious connection between Body & Mind, did Cartesian dualism become a philosophical problem. So, Descartes postulated that the Pineal gland in the brain was the "seat of the soul. But that didn't pan-out.

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. And, post-Shannon Information theory has found a logical/mathematical relationship between Energy & Information. Hence, some scientists & philosophers have concluded that Energy, Matter, & Mind are inter-related forms of the same fundamental "substance". :nerd:

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
So-called “information realism”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern. — Gnomon

In my view, it'd be easier to make your point by emphasizing the difference between sentences and neocortexes. . . .
So skeptical cynics are the true enemies of scientific progress? One funeral at a time, right? — lll

No. I'm not talking about conventional grammatical syntax or physical structure. My "point" was referring to "mathematical structure" & "mental meaning". Which are not constructed of matter or social conventions, but of cognitive relationships. (see definition of "Mathematical Structure" in reply to — Metaphysician Undercover above)

Cynics are obstacles to progress for whatever process they deny. But I'm not talking about "scientific progress", such as in Neurology. Instead, I'm referring to "philosophical progress", as in the "hard question" of Consciousness. How does matter become conscious of its environment and of itself? :smile:

reductive Reason — Gnomon
You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason. — L'éléphant

No. I mean scientific reasoning, as used effectively for the dissection of material objects. But when reductive methods are used on Holistic systems it misses the immaterial bonds that hold it together. So, those who insist on "empirical evidence" for philosophical concepts, such as "axioms". "principles", "categories", "substance", "essence", or "systems", may be applying "bone-headed, dismissive reason" to non-empirical problems. :smile:

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? . . .
The whole field of "process philosophy", which allows the substance of physical reality to be rendered as mathematical equations, instead of as matter, in a fundamental platonic realism, is derived from the annihilation of "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

For pragmatic l purposes -- such as walking on solid ground -- I take matter for granted. But for philosophical speculations, I have followed the findings of Quantum & Information sciences, to the conclusion that ultimate reality is in-substantial & immaterial. So, it seems possible that our massy world is constructed of weightless-but-meaningful relationships, such as mathematics & logic. Of course, that possibility is not amenable to empirical investigation. So, like Einstein riding on a light-beam, we must use the telescope of imagination to explore the unseen & intangible foundations of Reality.

Your reference to Process Philosophy is interesting. I've read A.N. Whitehead's book on the topic, but much of it was above my philosophical pay-grade. Can you direct me to a more accessible source of information on the "annihilation of matter" concept? :smile:

Mathematical structure :
In mathematics, a structure is a set endowed with some additional features on the set (e.g. an operation, relation, metric, or topology). Often, the additional features are attached or related to the set, so as to provide it with some additional meaning or significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure

Didn't know there was an anti-metaphysics brigade, but it seems inevitable, from a yin-yang point of view that is. . . .
So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. — Agent Smith

Oh yes. There's nothing new about the antagonistic split between reductive Reason & holistic Faith. It goes back, at least, to the Protestant Reformation. However, the "enlightenment" intellectual movement, of the 17th & 18th centuries, was not originally anti-metaphysics, but merely anti-dogma. Early church-educated scientists, using evidence & reason, concluded that the official cosmology of the Catholic Church was wrong on specific technical topics. Ironically, the geocentric cosmology of Christian Theologians was inherited from pagan Greeks & Romans (among others). But as soon as that doctrine was formally adopted as revealed Truth, it became incontrovertible dogma.

Certain features of the Earth-centric cosmology, while useful for theological purposes, upon closer inspection, turned-out to be unsuitable for mathematical calculations. But, by definition, doctrinal Faith cannot be wrong. So, what was originally an internal protestant movement -- defying church authority in favor of personal reasoning, and focused on minor scriptural exegesis -- was later expanded to defend against contradictory scientific interpretations. So, it was a three-way split : 1.Sacred Catholic, 2.Pious Protestant, and 3.Secular Science & Philosophy. My own heresy falls into the third slot.

Eventually, freethinking intellectuals turned against, not just scriptural squabbles, but Scholastic Metaphysics in general. A quarantine of material Physics from spiritual Metaphysics gradually became the doctrine of pragmatic Science. Although Physics & Metaphysics had been inter-twined in Philosophy since Aristotle, a divorce became inevitable during the Protestant & Scientific revolutions. So, Metaphysics (the science of ideas), despite its philosophical & intellectual origins, was then deemed not just anti-intellectual ("stupid idiots"), but also anti-science ("faith-based").

Sadly, that Matter/Mind partition of intellectual investigation continues to this day. So, the once esteemed label of "Metaphysics", has come to signify "Anti-Physics" and "Anti-Science". Which is why, even modern mind-researchers who focus on non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. Psychology), are careful to avoid the use of a tainted term in their work. Unfortunately, even Philosophers, who do not claim to do physical science, must also avoid any appearance of dabbling in "irrational" Metaphysics, for fear of being attacked by "the ghost-hunting brigade".

As a philosophical Skeptic myself, I don't mind their justified suspicion of rampant Pseudo-science and re-interpreted Theology. But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. Since Information Science is primarily concerned with topics such as Origin of Life, and Emergence of Consciousness, it begins to trespass across that cease-fire line drawn between Mind & Matter, by such scientists as Steven Jay Gould, which he labeled "non-overlapping magisteria". And those of us, who are interested in non-physical (e.g. mental) phenomena get caught in the crossfire. Keep your head down. :cool:


Non-Overlapping Magisteria :
that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Note -- the expanding domain of 21st century Information Theory from computers to minds has over-lapped into the no-go zone, and is being fired-upon by both sides of the powder-keg cease-fire zone.

My objection rests heavily on the inconsistency of there existing a perfect being in the same reality as an imperfect world. Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences? — tryhard

Yes. I accept Aristotle's logic, which concludes that a First Cause is necessary to explain the contingent existence of our world. That's even more obvious since the evidence for a cosmic beginning was discovered in the notions of evolution and expansion. But although his Prime Mover was self-existent, he didn't insist that it was "perfect", in the sense of moral excellence.

So, my hypothetical model for a self-existent Programmer of our long-running & continually-evolving program is Eternal & Infinite Potential, hence all-encompassing. And that definition includes the potential (or statistical possibility) for both Good & Evil. Therefore, like all executing, but incomplete,digital algorithms, our world computes both positive & negative values (1s & 0s). But the final result (synthesis) remains to be calculated. The up & down dialectic process of evolution swings back & forth between Thesis (e.g. positive, relatively good) & Anti-thesis(e.g. negative ; relatively bad) high & low points. And the ultimate output value remains in the unforeseeable future.

This is a PanEnDeistic (not in same reality) concept of a cosmic creator, which is unlike the typical Theistic model of Goodness & Perfection, that belies the reality of an OK-but-hardly-perfect creation. Since evolution explores both positive & negative possibilities, there's no need for a Heaven or Hell. What you see, is what you get. :smile:


What is Hegelian dialectic of good and evil :
As for good and evil, Hegel was extremely obscure on the issue, and Marx of course dismissed them as metaphysical abstractions detached from reality.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42562/what-is-hegelian-dialectic-of-good-and-evil-and-how-does-it-relate-to-binary-opp

All things in formation in the physical world have a potential counterpart in our brain. — EugeneW

Good point! The brain creates a model (analogy or counterpart) of the real world. Unfortunately, some posters seem to confuse the model with the terrain, or the terrain with the model, or the neuron with the idea. In this thread, the terrain is physical Reality & neuronal Brain, while the model is meta-physical Ideality & noumenal Mind. :smile:


This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/
Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern.

I don't want to get into this again. — T Clark

I was not criticizing you, but the "claim" that you were noting. Sorry, if that was not obvious. :yikes:

There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states. — T Clark

For the purposes of objective scientists, that claim may be acceptable. But philosophers are more interested in the subjective meaningful aspect of Ideas. For example, neurologists, back in the 60s, discovered that touching a probe to a specific area of a conscious brain could elicit a "complex but specific" idea (image or feeling) of Jennifer Anniston or Grandmother. As far as the brain-surgeon was concerned, that single neuron evoked a single idea. But it was never that simple.

Exciting a single neuron triggers a cascade of signals that propagate throughout the brain & body, seeking out other neurons that have been associated with that cell in the past. Related ideas may include the cedar scent of grandma's house, or her smiling eyes, or the sound of her voice, or a Christmas present. What I'm saying is that "neuron states" are holistic & multivalent --- and so are concepts & feelings. Consequently, the connection between stimulus & response is not so simple.

That's because a multivalent mental image is not a one-to-one correspondence to a single neuron. So, the simplistic Mind/Brain Identity theory, while serviceable for neurosurgeons, does not answer philosophical questions about the ontology of Mind, its functional relationship to the body, and the epistemology of Meaning. It's also not very helpful for inferring how another person feels about a particular objective situation. However, the emerging field of Integrated Information Theory is beginning to piece-together the reductive sub-components of Consciousness into a holistic understanding of Mind in its comprehensive context, including physical & functional aspects. :nerd:


The grandmother cell, sometimes called the "Jennifer Anniston neuron", is a hypothetical neuron that represents a complex but specific concept or object. It activates when a person "sees, hears, or otherwise sensibly discriminates" a specific entity, such as their grandmother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_cell

Excitatory neurotransmitters cause the signal to propagate - more action potentials are triggered.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/organ-systems/neuron-membrane-potentials/a/neuron-action-potentials-the-creation-of-a-brain-signal

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Integrated Information Theory :
Initially proposed by Giulio Tononi in 2004, it claims that consciousness is related to a certain kind of information, the realization of which requires physical, not merely functional, integration,
https://iep.utm.edu/integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/

What am I saying? I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent. — EugeneW

Agreed. :smile:

I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.) — Wayfarer

I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. That's primarily because I believe the universal role of Information in the world, is the future of both Science and Philosophy.

The anti-metaphysicalists tend to argue their position by simply insisting on the final authority of reductive materialistic science, and by shouting-down the holistic non-physical "idiots". I don't have any problem with empirical Science on legitimate physical topics. But I think non-empirical Philosophy is the better way to discuss, not necessarily prove, questions about intangibles, such as the never-ending Origin-of-Life & Body/Mind controversies.

Yes, Enformationism is my retirement hobby. And it is my personal position on almost all philosophical questions. So, I join a handful of leading-edge scientists & philosophers in trying to promote a new paradigm of Science. It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. In a previous paradigm shift, Information theory & Quantum mechanics both forced-open new doors to our comprehension on Reality. And both have revealed paradoxes underneath our classical and intuitive understanding of the world, that were grudgingly accepted, despite their absurdity. Enformationism is not about Information Technology, but about non-physical Philosophy, the science of Ideas.

Although Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive, its success in controlling Nature has forced us to admit that small-scale physics is weird. And Information Theory has been proven to be effective in opening new channels for communication of ideas. Ironically, its success in Artificial Intelligence, has obscured it's role in Natural Intelligence and in Ideas per se. So, those of us who do grok the universal applications of essential (and causal) Information, are facing a general lack of comprehension, and resistance from the dug-in old guard. Undaunted, we soldier on, as the proponents of a new paradigm must do, in order to advance both Science and Philosophy. :nerd:

New Paradigm :
1. A new way of thinking or doing things that replaces the old way.
2. A set of beliefs that replaces another set which is believed no longer to apply
3. A new logical framework for understanding a situation
4. Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon [e.g. consciousness], and someone proposes a new theory [i.e. universal causal information].

Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin. Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world. __Paul Davies, physicist, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading. — T Clark

Google "aristotle metaphysics topics". Then ask yourself if "Categories"; "Being Qua Being"; Principles"; or "Substance & Essence" are physical things or meta-physical (mental) ideas about the world. I merely adopted "metaphysics" as an inclusive term for the non-physical aspects of the real world that we distinguish from Nature with the name "Culture". For nearly 14 billion years the world was totally physical. But when the human mind emerged from the muck, immaterial memes began to evolve in an artificial simulation of genetic evolution. Do you think that immaterial (imaginary) "mind-stuff" has had any significant impact on the "real" world? :smile:

PS___It's not just my unorthodox usage of the term "Metaphysics", that the adherents of Scientism object to, but anything referring to non-physical or emergent aspects of the world. I have tried "Non-Physical", "Menta-Physical", "MInd-stuff", :Memes", "Cultural", "Ideal", "Qualia", and various other alternatives. But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. They also interpret all immaterial or non-physical notions as spooky "super-natural" beliefs, even though I try to avoid that baggage-laden term. Anyway, if you can suggest another way to talk about the perennial Mind/Body and Brain/Mind questions, please let me know. :meh:

I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".

Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. :smile:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
___ Rudyard Kipling

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space — Gnomon
Just filing this away. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time. :smile:

PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. — Wayfarer

You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile:

PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.

The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.

You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.

Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. :cool:

idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky

Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie. :smile:

In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:

2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it. — god must be atheist

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.

Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.

My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics. :cool:


*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.

Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/moderation-considered-virtue

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing.[/b]
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-cant-be-broken-but-can-they-be-defined?utm_source=pocket-newtab

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.. . . .
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid. — lll

Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile:

So - you’re trolling the trolls? — Wayfarer

Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.

As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics. :smile:

"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2

PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition. :cool:

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted.

I'm not sure how far back the current physical vs non-physical contention can be traced. But a match was probably struck to the fuse when Enlightenment Science began to challenge the then-dominant Metaphysics of the Catholic Church. The subsequent separation of church & state may have cooled the flames for a while. But the resurgence of Creationism versus Evolutionism in the 20th century, stoked the latent fires of diametrically opposed worldviews : Spiritual vs Material. Around the turn of the 21st century, the Four Horsemen of Atheism began a concerted counter-attack. And the resultant polarization & politicization of worldviews is still reflected in debates on forums such as Quora and TPF.

Most of us on this forum seem to be open to polite exchanges of views. Unfortunately, those with black vs white attitudes have turned some philosophical dialogues into political diatribes. :sad:

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12649/meta-physical-versus-anti-metaphysical

That there is some sort of correlation between "the terrain", as a product of your sensations, and the thing itself, is just an assumption people make. — Metaphysician Undercover

That may be true in an abstract cognitive sense. But, if we didn't make the "connection" or "assumption" that a cliff edge (absence of solid ground) is really there, we could take a fatal step into the abyss. Our eyes & brains interpret edges as a sign that a surface changes direction. That's a useful assumption to assure evolutionary survival. Even in a Virtual Reality goggle, you'd be wise to assume, without proof, that an edge means either a real obstacle or an absent precipice. :joke:

Assumption : 1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

‘Ancient Brain’ Helps Us Interpret Edges :
https://theserf.org/news/ancient-brain-helps-us-interpret-edges/

Space is infinite. There is no end to it. The universe expands in it. Accelerated even. Will it come to a sudden stop because space ends? — EugeneW

Einstein defined the universe as "finite, but unbounded". Ironically, "unbounded" is one definition of "infinite". Yet, Einstein's mathematical universe is depicted as a sphere, which would actually be finite in space, except that "space" is inside the sphere. Now wrap your mind around the paradox of unbounded space trapped inside a finite sphere. :joke:

Einstein postulated that the universe is finite in time (bounded at the big bang singularity), and unbounded in space -- i.e., if one could travel the four dimensional universe in a geodesic one would not find a boundary, and would end up at the starting point, just like the path of a geodesic on the 3-dimension Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-the-Universe-be-finite-and-unbounded-and-still-be-Euclidean



What Lies Beyond the Edge of the Observable Universe? :
So, in some ways, infinity makes sense. But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won't just find more planets and stars and other forms of ...
https://futurism.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe

What is perceived and understood depends on the observer. — EugeneW

Yes. The eye is not the only component in vision. The brain interprets the visual stimuli in order to understand what is being seen. And even the brain has more than one way to Perceive, as exemplified in the "Blindsight" phenomenon. Moreover, the brain can Conceive of something that isn't there, as in illusions and mirages. So human perception is a combination of physical and non-physical functions. By "non-physical" I mean the interpretation of physical inputs into non-physical meaning in the Mind. Percepts are converted into Concepts. So, "what you see, ain't always what you got". :nerd:


Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.
___Wiki