The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

180wooboo accuses Gnomon of "making sh*t up". And the gnarly gnome does make-up new terms to describe scientific terms that miss an important philosophical aspect of a physical concept. For example, Claude Shannon adopted the physics notion of Entropy for his theory of Information. But that only describes the negative un-informative result of disintegration of Information (e.g. disinformation). So the Gnome proposed the coinage "Enformy" to label the positive progressive feature of Nature that physicists dismissively mislabeled as "Negentropy" (negation of a negation). If creating new names for new concepts is "making sh*t up" then that's what philosophers and scientists do when faced with unprecedented concepts turned-up by pioneering investigators.

In recent years, professional physicists have begun to the equate the positive constructive features of Information*1 (Enformation ; power to enform) with the invisible causal physical agent we know as "Energy" (Negentropy). I assume that 180's philosophical "seasoning" did not include such cutting-edge science. In any case, the notion of a positive causal force organizing randomness into organization may be too woo for his taste. Cleverness aside, does it seem to be "scientifically valid", or philosophically reasonable to you? :smile:


*1. Notes on The Energy Equivalence of Information :
such information is the negative of entropy (negentropy) and is the equivalent of a cost in energy.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b09528
Note -- Energy (EnFormAction) is a Credit, while Entropy (dis-enformation) is a Debit in the ledger of Physics.


ENERGY / INFORMATION EQUIVALENCE

I view Gnomon as some sort of negotiator/arbiter, trying to find the middle ground between science and faith and, to my reckoning, he's made considerable progress - more needs to be done, but he regularly tests his ideas, against seasoned philosophers like yourself for example.
Of course this doesn't mean Gnomon is correct, but he makes sense to me at some level. You seem to have found flaws, small & big, in Enformationism and hence your hostile pronouncements; alas, I'm not privy to them. — Agent Smith

I hadn't thought of myself as a "negotiator", but maybe I'm a navigator. Trying to negotiate a safe passage between the Scylla of Science and the Charybdis of Faith. seems to be unaware that I long-ago left-behind my childhood indoctrination in the philosophy of Faith. But I am also aware that empirical (materialistic) Science has a sort of blind spot (inherent in the philosophy of Materialism) : the non-physical (mental ; cultural ; informational) aspects of reality. To me, the advent of Rational Mind in a material world is much more important than the advent of a sentimental Savior in an imperial Roman world. However, I don't pretend to be so morally or intellectually superior to those who still cling to their Faith (including my own family), that has been stretched over 2000 years, but hasn't completely snapped yet.

My personal BothAnd philosophy may be a modern version of Aristotle's Golden Mean*1 -- advising moderation in all things. In my experience, Either/Or extremism is the root of all kinds of evil. 180wooboo is indeed a "seasoned philosopher", but he seems to find Aristotle too wishy-washy for his more critical taste. I am merely an amateur dabbler in philosophy, and most of my seasoning has been in the scientific fields of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. Hence, instead of quoting Wittgenstein, I quote Einstein ; instead of linking to abstruse tomes by Kierkegaard, I often link to the "improvisatory" writings of Donald Hoffman*2 *3 (revolutionary cognitive scientist). So, 180 has good reasons to feel superior to Gnomon . . . . as a philosopher.

Typically, his "found flaws" are focused on any of my ideas that don't conform to the "settled" classical science of the 18th & 19th centuries, which rejected the theological science of 13th century Catholicism. Hence, his "hostile pronouncements" on concepts that seem to imply divine intervention, or transcendence in general, or higher dimensions. However, I assure you, it is not my intention to ratify the doctrines of Imperial Religion, or ancient Oriental beliefs.

One reason you are "not privy" to 180's "found flaws" is that he tends to make broad general denunciations instead of tailored specific arguments. Which is why he seems to be frustrated by Gnomon's refusal to dialogue with his diatribes. So, in order to untwist his mis-interpretations of Gnomon's "folly", I like to engage with those who are not so prejudiced against non-mainstream ideas. :smile:


*1. Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes :
Aristotle listed moderation as one of the moral virtues. He also defined virtue as the mean between extremes, implying that moderation plays a vital role in all forms of moral excellence.
https://polisci.indiana.edu/research/publications/faces-of-moderation-the-art-of-balance-in-an-age-of-extremes.html

*2. Q: “Is Donald Hoffmans Interface theory of perception largely accepted? Or do most scientists think evolution has meant we perceive the world relatively accurately?”
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/Do-you-have-any-proof-to-disprove-Donald-Hoffman-s-interface-theory-of-perception

*3. The Case Against Prof. Donald Hoffman’s Case Against Reality :
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/the-case-against-prof-donald-hoffmans-case-against-reality-f5fdf692a1c1

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof
... says the guy whose astral projection is off the charts! :grin: — Agent Smith

As you well know, thinks my use of the philosophical term "Meta-Physics" is a reference to "otherworldly" dimensions. Hence, his "woo-woo" sneers. This despite any "astral projection", "afterlife", or "higher dimension" assertions. My worldview is indeed BothAnd, which includes both empirical science and theoretical philosophy as overlapping magisteria. Apparently, his view is Either/Or (Black or White -- no overlap), so his snide responses are shooting at the wrong target, in the gray area ("the gap") beyond the scope of physical science. I hope you don't make the same mistake.

From his Physical vs Anti-physical perspective, even the mental aspects of the Real world must fall under the category of Physical. So, the Mind must be identical with the brain. But the emergence of animal Minds in the world is a recent innovation of physical evolution, and left no physical fossils for evidence. Moreover, human Minds appeared on the scene only a few thousand years ago. Then, in the blink of an eye -- on the time frame of evolution -- those minds took over the creative role of Evolution. But it wasn't just tangled webs of physical neurons that accelerated the rate of evolution via Culture. Instead, it was the advent of metaphysical Reason that made the difference that makes an enormous difference in the character of the universe.

So, you could ask him what kind of physical stuff Reason is made of, and what physical forces force Reason to follow a particular path. Of course his answer will be to presumptuously equate Reason with Brain. Which would make the professions of Psychology & Philosophy subject to the same physical laws that make apples fall to the ground. But even gravity is Metaphysical, in the sense that Newton implied*1 *2. In that case, one of the founders of Classical Physics would be guilty of committing "woo-woo".

In my own transgressions across the forbidden line, I refer to the Agent behind all energies & forces of the world by various terms, such as : First Cause. And that's as "otherworldly" or "higher dimensional" as I get. In my defense though, even respected scientists also conjecture extra-dimensional worlds : as in Many Worlds and Multiverse theories. So, it seems that I am in good company, when I make philosophical "woo" postulations ; while admitting, like Newton, that I don't know anything specific about the ultimate Causal Agent of this world. And I don't "just make sh*t up" to fill that pre-big-bang gap. :smile:


*1. Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/isaac-newton-quotes

*2. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258

What is metaphysical? Just like virtual particles that can become real in our scientific sense? Is spiritual stuff outside of both physical and metaphysical stuff? — TiredThinker

I like to use the taboo term "Metaphysics" in the Aristotelian sense of Mental vs Material objects. So yes, when scientists use the term "Virtual" regarding particles of matter, they are obliquely referring to statistical potential (probability) as if those mathematical (imaginary) objects were already real & actual. The existence of Virtual particles (dimensionless points in an imaginary matrix) is Meta-Physical*1, in the sense that they have no physically measurable properties. Their mathematical properties are known by logical inference, not by physical observation. The ancients imagined that Life & Mind existed in some invisible parallel "spiritual" realm. But those abstract features of the real world are no more spiritual than mundane Mathematics*2.

Unfortunately, the Latin descriptive term (after the Physics) was applied to Aristotle's second volume of his Physics, by theologians. In volume two, he discussed, not sensory observations of physical objects, but imaginary philosophical ideas about both mental & material aspects of the world. To this day, those ideal mental models are the "stuff" of philosophy. On this forum, as amateur dabblers in philosophy, we use Reason as a microscope to examine the metaphysical objects of other minds (their ideas). Fortunately, those non-physical mind-objects exist in the real world of human minds, not in some inaccessible alternative world. :smile:

*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 (by theologians) as “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).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. What is mathematics? :
Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do.
https://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil. — Bret Bernhoft

I don't "practice" Stoicism or Buddhism in any doctrinal sense, but my personal philosophy could be characterized as "stoic", in a general sense. The only "dark side" I'm aware of is a tendency toward Fatalism. Most ancient Greeks, culturally, were fatalists : submissive toward the divine Fates, and compliant toward the fickle fortunes of human destiny (like the oppressed proletariat of most cultures). But they also applauded the few romantic heroes who defied Fate against all hope, and accepted the inevitable consequences, as in Homer's Odyssey.

So, if you believe in human Free Will (heroically denying Determinism), to deliberately practice passive Stoicism might cause you to adopt an attitude of resignation, and a slide into personal apathy, angst and homelessness. On the other hand, Stoicism, with a touch of Optimism, could allow you to enjoy the benefits of Apatheia (freedom from worry or anxiety), while following your dreams. :smile:

Stoic Fatalism — Is it Bad? :
The original Stoics were indeed fatalists in the deterministic sense. In other words, they thought that all actions were predetermined by nature. According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person. Any freedom of the human will is therefore, on the face of it, out of the question” .
https://chadebrack.com/stoic-fatalism-is-it-bad/

Since yours is a monist view, I assume all people in your view are also patterns at the end of the day correct? Wouldn't that result in fictional people "existing" in the same way you and I exist? — khaled

My worldview is Monist in the sense that it assumes, as an axiom, a single ultimate Origin of all particular patterns (entities). That hypothetical-but-logically-necessary Source is what I call "The Enformer" or "First Cause". But our physical senses are tuned to detect & interpret physical patterns, not the meta-physical "Pattern Maker". However, we can infer the Necessary Being*1 as a transcendent creative force via Reasoning from mundane experience with phenomena and causation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fictional people". In the movie The Matrix, Neo is a fictional character, who is portrayed as a personal pattern in two fictional worlds : A> simulated normal reality (computer-generated data patterns) and B> gritty actual reality (nature-generated data patterns). Presumably, human viewers of the movie can tell the difference between imaginary movie characters and observed reality people. Yet, the movie presents a philosophical dilemma in which the simulations are so close to real phenomena that they seem to "exist" in the same way you and I do. However, in the physical world, we can't be so easily fooled by single-sense appearances, because we have multi-sense sensors. Unfortunately, the movie presumes that the AI simulation -- converted by the pods into dream language -- is so sophisticated that a fictional steak can taste "juicy and delicious"*2.

Nevertheless, even if we flesh & blood humans can't distinguish between a high-resolution simulation and actual reality, the Programmer of Nature should know which is which. So, from that higher perspective, any fictional people will "exist" in a different sense : artificial creations existing only in the imagination of natural creatures. For example, Neo first existed as an imaginary (abstract pattern) character in the mind of the factual (concrete pattern) story creators, then was repeatedly re-created in the minds of movie-goers. Ironically, the fact that we can imagine such paradoxical situations may be what made Philosophical Skepticism necessary. :smile:


*1. Logically, The Transcendent Being persisting beyond space-time would not "exist" in the same way as you and I do, within the constraints of Space & Time. Ironically, that implication would also apply to any "fictional people". Hence, the difficulty of distinguishing between "Inferred" and "Imagined" characters.

The notion of necessary being, applied to God and withheld from man, indicates that God and man differ not merely in the characteristics which they possess but more fundamentally, in their modes of being, or in the fact that they exist in different senses of the word 'exist'. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/abs/necessary-being/828B48FABE8B24A8567A8D2BF450D80B

*2. Cypher in the fictional Matrix :"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? . . . . Ignorance is bliss."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/characters/nm0001592

I have heard many metaphysical people that believe in afterlife, psychics, and the like talk about other dimensions or even higher dimensions. But what exactly do they mean other than places that aren't here? To my knowledge dimensions are only things that have been applied to mathematics? — TiredThinker

Before the 20th century, the meaning of "Dimension" was obvious : a physical measurement, typically expressed with a vector of compass direction & measured magnitude. Then, Einstein muddied the waters by merging the three spatial (physical) dimensions with the singular temporal (mental) dimension. Next, Quantum Theory proposed the physically-vague-but-mathematically-useful notion of Meta-Physical (mathematical) Fields, imagined as extended in space, but consisting of 0-dimensional points that are defined only by reference to an imaginary grid. Eventually, the hypothetical notions of Many Worlds & Multiverses extended the range of discussable dimensions to infinity. Meanwhile, the Physical meaning of "Dimension" has been applied to various Meta-Physical (mental ; non-physical) postulations.

Last year, TPF had a thread based on the notion of a 5th Dimension of Mind/Consciousness. But when I asked the poster for a specific definition of that "dimension", she refused, on principle --- implying that I should just accept it on faith. She also declined to describe how that "dimension" could be measured. So, I concluded that she was simply applying the "5th Dimension" label to the ancient concepts of Platonic Ideals (potential Forms) and Aristotelian Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). But they weren't talking about "afterlife" or "psychic phenomena" and such.

Therefore, I concluded that postulating a "5th dimension" was merely a sneaky way to make metaphysical concepts sound more sciency. Personally, I find "Idealism" & "Metaphysics" to be more useful terms for talking about mental objects (ideas ; Philosophy), but not for discussing physical bodies & forces (corporeal ; Science). Since the topical subject "matter" of Mathematics is ideas about immaterial philosophical abstractions, it is a proper venue for discussions about higher dimensions. But, due to the non-physical intellectual nature of such abstract concepts, as with all philosophical postulates, we need to be willing to carefully define terms. And to expect some skepticism about things you can't put a finger on. :smile:

The chief difficulty with Platonism is that while proposing a distinct type of reality of mathematical entities, it must then explain how this reality interacts with everyday things. — Banno
Good question What do you think of the following explanation for explaining interaction? . . . .
In this view, mathematical entities are not a distinct type of reality. They are ideas, just like “tree.” — Art48

My tentative explanation of how Ideas interact with Real things is similar, but based on a philosophical simulation of Quantum & Information Theory. The dual entities are distinct only in the sense that the same mind can distinguish between a Thing and the idea of the Thing. Real & Ideal things are conceptually distinctive, but not epistemologically exclusive -- they are not in parallel worlds, but in the same world. You don't have to go out of this world to create an imaginary replica of a physical object.

Plato's Ideals are often portrayed as existing in some aethereal heavenly realm. But they are differentiated from mundane Reality only in the sense that mental Meta-Physics is distinct from material Physics. The human brain is physical, and interacts (communicates) with its own material body via electro-chemical signals (material information). Meanwhile, the brain also interacts (communicates) with its own ideas via something like Quantum Signal Processing : conversion of physical processes to mathematical ratios & algorithms.

In other words, specific physical energy patterns are converted into coded information functions -- in this case, the function we call "imagination" or "conception". This transformation from physical Energy to Meta-physical Information happens within the holistic system of a Person, not in some parallel world.
Of course, the detailed "how" is far over my pointy little head. So, this is just a crude macro description of the micro mechanics of Thinking. Perhaps it could only be really/ideally understood by a Mathematical Physicist. :smile:

PS__The Brain deals with Material neuro-logical patterns while the Mind works with Logical/Mathematical patterns : inter-relationships.

Quantum Signal Processing is a Hamiltonian simulation algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_signal_processing

The Hamiltonian of a system specifies its total energy—i.e., the sum of its kinetic energy (that of motion) and its potential energy (that of position)
https://www.britannica.com/science/Hamiltonian-function

I was into astrology for a while in my late teens, and I found myself seeing people's star signs in their personality. I suspected myself of confirmation bias so I tried predicting people's star signs before they told me. Absolutely hopeless. My success rate was probably worse than chance. — bert1

That was also my experience. Although skeptical of the stellar mechanism, I was impressed by the array of symbols & archetypes that had been assembled over time into a relatively simple, but sufficiently comprehensive, pattern of options from which to assemble a meaningful story. Consequently, found the personality charts of sun signs more useful than the astronomical data. For example, I typically view Donald Trump as a prideful Leo*1, but he could also be a two-faced Gemini, depending on your observations & assumptions.

So, Astrology seems to be a pseudoscience, but still useful for human-interest purposes. Also, like Alchemy & Chemistry, centuries of trial & error & imagination finally resulted in something more reliable -- not for predicting human fates, but for predicting star & planet futures via Astronomy. :smile:

*1. Typical sun in Leo traits include being confident, comfortable being the center of attention, drama-adoring, ambitious, loyal, fiercely protective of their nearest and dearest, generous, luxury-loving, sunny, and big-hearted.

Would it not be better to say that "what exists is energy (what matter is or is made of), and information (pattern). Matter is patterned energy, or in other words energy infused with information."? — punos

That is closer to my own worldview. However, I go one step farther from Physics toward Metaphysics to assume that "all that exists is Information"*1. With that premise, we provide a possible explanation for the emergence of immaterial Minds (awareness) from a material world. Matter is indeed "patterned energy", but Information (EnFormAction) is the Pattern Maker.

A pattern begins with differentiation, like a checkerboard : a simple two value pattern. But in Physics the difference between high & low energy values (hot & cold) is what we experience as Energy*2. Likewise, we experience Matter fundamentally in terms of differing Mass/Space ratios : some elementary particles seem to occupy space but possess no mass, depending on their rate of motion through space. The upper limit is the speed of light, which maximizes energy while minimizing mass. (note -- this is an oversimplification)

All patterns experienced by human senses result from "energy infused with information". Potential Energy is patternless. But Enformed Energy is the cause of Actual material patterns that our senses detect. Hence, Generic Information (Energy >> Matter >> Mind) is the Enforming (causal) power of the universe. A conscious Mind interprets the patterned (informational) structure by judging the complex ratios of inter-relationships in terms of personal meaning. Such abstruse concepts are not commonly known, even on a Philosophical forum. So how did you arrive at the assertion quoted above? :smile:

*1. Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality. Subsequently, we discuss Tononi’s axiomatic approach which takes phenomenology of experience and its characteristics as primary and built a theory to explain consciousness as the capacity of a system of mechanisms (neurons or logic gates) to integrate intrinsic information.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21#Abs1

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

TWO-VALUE PATTERN


MULTI-VALUE PATTERN

I will now present my ontological view for everyone to have fun tearing down. I don't know if this ontology has a name already but if it does please tell me.
It is a dualist ontology, but not substance (ew), or property dualism. I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter. — khaled

Except for its Material foundation, your ontology sounds similar to mine, which I call Enformationism*1 : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). You might think of it as an update of Aristotle's hylomorphism (matter + form), except that it is a monistic concept in that Enformation is the essence (defining pattern) of everything, both Matter & Mind. "Information" is simply meaningful patterns in both matter & minds.

My thesis is based primarily on Information Theory and Quantum Theory. "EnFormAction" is a term coined to encapsulate the multiple roles of Generic Information in the world : it is the creative power to enform, to give form to the formless. The hierarchy of physical reality from-which-all-things-flow begins with EnFormAction (energy ; causation), which takes-on the various forms of Matter (the furniture of the world), and eventually even of Mind (the observer of the world).

Patterns are inter-relationships as known by the mind, not the eye. And Information is basically meaningful or functional relationships. So, EnFormAction is the cause of all things knowable by the senses, and manifest to the mind. Einstein expressed that hylomorphic relationship as E = MC^2 : Causal Energy is made manifest by turning Potential (C^2) into Actual stuff with the measurable property of Mass (M). Anything with that essential property is called Matter (hyle).

Of course, the physical Arrangements*2 that we interpret as Patterns*3, have existed for eons in the absence of intelligent minds. But they appeal to the mind as-if they were originally intended*4 to resonate with natural brains, due to their common evolutionary origins. So, the ambiguity (two sides of same coin) of natural patterns allows us to interpret them as accidental or intentional. But the Enformationism perspective, as a philosophical method, is looking for meaning, and finds it even in the natural patterns that Science views as meaningless. :smile:


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

*2. Arrangement :
the way that things or people are organized for a particular purpose or activity
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/arrangement

*3. Pattern :
any regularly repeated arrangement, a design.*3
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pattern
Note -- A pattern is by definition non-random, and seems to be intentional : e.g. the Giant's Causeway, in which the pattern is due to natural processes, and to the regulatory intentions we call Natural Laws. We could debate how the beautiful & orderly patterns of Nature could arise repeatedly & consistently from random processes. Darwin attributed the organization of evolution to Natural Selection. Which raised the question of how such design choices came to be inherent in natural processes : "design without designer". Darwin concluded that the "design" was illusory. But why would Nature want to deceive intelligent observers? Cognitive scientist, Donald Hoffman*5 has proposed a reason for human awareness to "see" simple superficial patterns instead of complex underlying processes. It seems to be a case of human intelligence viewing Nature through patterned glasses.

*4. Purpose :
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists -- intention or objective. ___Oxford

*5. The Case Against Reality :
He presents a comprehensive argument that we don’t see or otherwise sense reality, but only an interface with reality.
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12/05/do-we-see-icons-or-reality-a-review-of-donald-hoffmans-the-case-against-reality-brian-martin/

Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. There is no free will at any particular point. What do people think? — Edmund

How does he know the causal "buck" does not stop at a buck-making First Cause? Perhaps he is just assuming that causation is open-ended infinity, or maybe circular, in order to avoid the implications of Intention (Will) in the universe. But the only causal evidence we have (evolution) seems to be continual and progressive, hence teleological*1. And that directional pattern suggests a willful First Cause.

Regarding "interruptions" in the chain of causation, perhaps some of the links are Cultural (man-made) instead of Natural, a conscious Choice instead of a natural Selection. In that case the "chain" is un-broken*2. Therefore, the "determinist chain" may have Intentional Links, and a purposeful First Cause. If so, the signs of Free Will may be immersed in the continual flow of natural & cultural causation*3. :smile:


*1. Teleological Evolution :
Evolution began with a Bang, an outburst of causal Energy, since then raw energy has developed into many varieties of Matter, and thence into stars, galaxies, & planets. On at least one planet, matter has evolved into living creatures, and some of those creatures have developed purposeful Minds, and eventually into the most complex & dynamic organization in the universe : human Culture. From simplicity (seed), to cosmic complexity (astronomical organization), to living organisms (plants & animals), to life-preserving brains (intentions), to the purpose-serving constructions of the human Mind --- the universe seems to be growing and maturing in an upward direction, but toward what end?

*2. If you come to a fork in the road, take it :
The Freewill Agent doesn’t create the yoke in the road, but he does choose one or the other branch . . . some-times in view of a desired destination, but often by a flip of a coin. Even the coin is free to land heads or tails, and a sequence of flips is randomly distributed instead of rigidly regular.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page14.html

*3. Unscripted Free Will :
Obviously, most humans, slaves excepted, have always acted as-if they are masters of their own destinies, even when their best-laid plans went awry. So, he looked into the possibility that Self-awareness itself might indicate that humans are an exception to the rule of external causes.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page29.html

Tarot cards appear to have been designed very specifically, with common tropes and archytpes in mind. Many of the concepts they embody or personify seem to reflect what I would say are the fundamentals of human experience: — Benj96

Yes. Like most other forms of prophecy or fortune-telling, Tarot uses symbols & archetypes as plot devices for storytelling. As "fundamentals of human experience" they can be woven together into narratives that will seem to have personal significance to someone who is motivated to look for certain meanings & feelings.

Unlike abstract & random tea-leaves or animal entrails though, these figures & metaphors are more directly associated with common human experience : love, grief, etc. So, they are easier for the untrained person to interpret as the next chapter in a specific life. However, a talented & experienced interpreter of human emotions will make a fictional fantasy sound more personalized & believable. :smile:

What Is a Plot Device? :
A plot device is a storytelling tool or technique that is used to propel a narrative. A well-written plot device can be deeply satisfying to a reader or audience member.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/common-plot-devices-and-how-to-use-them-in-your-writing

A question can be uninterpretable. It can be confusing. It can hide assumptions. It can be leading. But in what sense can it be wrong? — bert1

Perhaps the respondent is trying to say that you have made a Category Error, hence any assertions you make are "not even wrong". That kind of put-down is usually reserved for science vs pseudo-science arguments. :smile:

Not Even Wrong :
Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument, or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

category error :
the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.

Sorry, good try, but an appreciation of creativity and discovery comes with involvement, not philosophical chatter. — jgill

Sorry, I was just jotting down some preliminary ideas related to the OP, and to your notion of "Creative Step" and "Discovery". When you "decided to extend this idea to a more general realm" (specific-to-general) you were doing Inductive Reasoning, which is one kind of creative act in Philosophy, and in Mathematics. But, another approach is to break-down a broad general concept into more particular applications (general-to-specific) Deductive Reasoning. I suppose both can be creative, depending on their practical or theoretical implementation (involvement??).

It seems that the OP is an attempt to generalize from spacetime observations to something beyond spacetime : specifically Mathematics & Mental Images. The abstract concepts of Mathematics exist "beyond" space-time in the sense that Math objects are not affected by the physical laws that govern the behavior of material objects. I suppose that is trying to extend that spaceless & timeless aspect of Math, to the abstractions that we humans create to represent the Self (or Soul, if you prefer). That is not exactly a new idea, except for the connection to immaterial Mathematics & Logic, which some thinkers imagine existing eternally out-there beyond the limits of space-time (Ideality instead of Reality).

So, he seems to be expressing an ancient concept (we are souls) in more modern language : "we are math". Whether that's a creative step may depend on how he develops the basic notion into a philosophical position. Unfortunately, even the Ontological status of Mathematics is subject to philosophical debate. So, the notion of a soul-man is not a slam-dunk. :smile:

PS__"Philosophical Chatter", as you put it, seems to be how philosophers get involved in discovering new ways to look at old ideas. Are the mathematician's chalk-marks on the blackboard more involved than text-marks on a philosophical forum?


"More or less, although most math people give this question little thought. In my case, I was introduced to a notion years ago in my PhD studies. A little later on I decided to extend this idea to a more general realm - a sort of creative step. Once the basic ideas of the concept were set, then came the acts of discovery - finding what flows forth logically." ___jgill

"Which suggests that reality—that me, you, Earth, universe, etc.—is fundamentally some sort of abstract object existing outside spacetime. Hm." ___Art48

Was mathematics invented or discovered? :
Both discovered and invented — Gnomon
More or less, although most math people give this question little thought. In my case, I was introduced to a notion years ago in my PhD studies. A little later on I decided to extend this idea to a more general realm - a sort of creative step. Once the basic ideas of the concept were set, then came the acts of discovery - finding what flows forth logically. — jgill

Math is usually associated with numerical Quanta, while Logic is associated with semantic Qualia. Ironically, both are expressed in "values" (numerical & meaning), and both are forms of Consciousness. That may help to explain why math overlaps both classes of experience. We become aware of individual objects, and infer their quantitative relationship to a collection of objects. Then we can deal with the group as-if it was a singular object (set ; whole system ; holism). So, maybe once we discover the "basic idea" of objective things & groups, we can discover (create) their subjective value (meaning) to the observer.

Sorry, I'm just riffing on your "creative step" notion. Our senses become aware of non-self things, that have only numerical value. But then, rational inference discovers a possible (logical) connection between thing and self. Hence, external objective Quanta (impersonal value) is transformed into personal Qualia via the "creative step" of inference (imagining thing & self together). The Measurement problem of Quantum Physics may be a case of crossing the line between Quanta/Qualia, numerical/personal, object/subject. I have to go now, but I may try to "extend this idea" at a later time. :smile:

Put otherwise, anyone can make shit up. We need an evaluative eye that can spot the crap. . . . Along side a desire for stories of breadth and completeness, we need to foster a critical attitude. That seems to be missing here. — Banno

Sure. And philosophers tend to be good at "making sh*t up". Some of it turns out to be pragmatically useful, in which case science takes over to make use of the ideas. And this forum is an arena for presenting ideas to a wide variety of critical eyes. Some here find Hegel's ideas useful for their insights into the "teleology of history", while others find fault for the same "sh*t". Suum cuique."To each his own"

Yet all too often what we get is not constructive criticism, but censorious or condemnatory attacks on ideas that don't conform to a personal belief system. My comments in this thread are not intended to be scientific criticism, since I'm not a scientist with expertise in the mathematical concepts presented here. Instead, I'm trying to be supportive of philosophical exploration of ideas that are of interest to me personally --- especially the philosophical implications of Information Theory and Quantum Theory, which are ripe targets for both positive & negative criticism. :smile:

PS__FWIW, I did quibble about his notion of Mathematical objects as existing "outside spacetime". Does that count as critique, from your perspective? Math is indeed something that humans "make up", but based on observations of relationships that exist or persist within space & time. Then again, space-time is also an abstract concept (mental model), which is intended to describe observed changes in location and in relation. Yet the generalized or universalized concept of Mathematics seems to point beyond any particular brain/mind. So, where could it be located in space-time?

Critique vs. Criticism :
In general, criticism is judgmental and focused on finding fault, while critique is descriptive and balanced.
https://medium.com/storygarden/critique-vs-criticism-36ddf0d191ff

Was mathematics invented or discovered? :
Both discovered and invented. When humans perceive the world through consciousness, everything is an abstract entity without a pre-defined representation. When we discover something in the world (such as ability, physical object, event, causality, pattern, etc.), we start to use our minds to describe it. Our consciousness will create personal ‘representations’ of everything for reasoning and thinking
https://www.quora.com/Was-mathematics-invented-or-discovered-1
Note -- We "discover" consistent patterns of inter-relationships between objects & actions, and then we "invent" formal symbols & language to allow us to discuss the invisible Logic that serves as the underlying inter-connection structure of the physical world.

↪Gnomon
Have you looked at ↪Art48's book? What do you make of it? — Banno

No. But I did look at another of his long essays, and he seems to be generally well-informed. In this thread, I'm only responding to the concepts expressed in this thread, not to Art's book. I'm aware that some of his ideas are fringey, but so are mine. That's why I try to encourage him to explore beyond the known into terra incognita, despite negative feedback.

For philosophical purposes, I'm not concerned about compatibility with "settled science", as long as the general idea makes sense to me (sounds logical). The notion of Mathematics as the foundation of physical reality, corresponds to my own understanding that General Information (which includes Math & Energy) may be the essential structure of Reality. That's not "settled science", but some prominent scientists are enthusiastic about such non-physical (abstract) aspects of Nature/Culture. :smile:

PS__I don't think that the mathematics of physics & minds is "outside of space-time". But, as non-physical abstractions, mathematical concepts only exist mentally & ideally, so not directly affected by the causal changes that we interpret as space-time. However, I do go so far as to postulate a timeless First Cause to explain the existence of our physical -- and meta-physical (mental) -- world. But I don't presume to speak for that hypothetical entity.

We have quantum entanglement, which says that signals can travel faster than light. — Art48

You'll get some negative feedback for that assertion. Actually, at first experimenters were baffled by the "entanglement effect" which seemed to imply faster than light communication. Since then though, other explanations for the instantaneous correlation between particles have been proposed. I'm not a physicist, so I prefer a model that fits into my personal information-theoretic worldview. From that perspective, there is no movement of matter, energy, or information between entangled particles. Instead, the opposite spins are metaphorically two sides of one particle. And all particles in the universe are non-local & unreal (virtual) until triggered by an interaction to manifest with physical properties. In other words, the world is a single holistic (non-space-time) reservoir of infinite Potential, until transformed into Actual bits of matter/energy. The particle doesn't have to go anywhere, because it's already there.

Unfortunately, that holistic description will not make sense to those with a Reductive scientific paradigm of reality. But it fits neatly into the philosophical Enformationism worldview, in which abstract (non-concrete) Information is the fundamental substance (essence) of the world. Another way to look at it is to say that abstract Mathematics is the logical structure (interrelationships) of reality. Mathematics (numbers ; ratios ; equivalences), like Logic, exists only ideally, with no physical properties at all. The science of mathematics is a product of human inference & imagination, hence Idealistic instead of Realistic -- a theory instead of an observation.

However, the human brain is programmed, by pragmatic evolution, to interpret abstract relationships in concrete terms. Consequently, our worldviews are seen through a matter-based frame. So, Materialists and Nominalists are merely saying what they are seeing with their eyes. But, as cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman has proposed, those real things we think we see are merely "icons" or symbols (mental representations) of the underlying reality, which is mathematical or informational. So, Realists are seeing their own conceptual models of reality, not ultimate reality.

Hoffman uses the metaphor of a computer interface to describe how our brains are deceived by our own pre-conceptions. But, in keeping with the Enformationism thesis, I like to use The Matrix movie as a metaphor. In one scene, Cypher is showing Neo the green raining code, and remarks that "I don't even see the code anymore". Like computer screen icons, the code is an abstraction of an underlying reality -- or in this case a simulated reality. Perhaps the real world your senses perceive is a simulation of the true reality : the mathematical information (code) that constructs the world of the senses. :smile:


The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Don Hoffman :
The Case Against Reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

SEMIOLOGY : REFERENCE vs REFERENT


Simulated Reality Code :
Matrix digital rain, Matrix code or sometimes green rain, is the computer code featured in the Matrix series. The falling green code is a way of representing the activity of the simulated reality environment of the Matrix on screen by kinetic typography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_digital_rain
Don't see the code anymore :
https://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/i-dont-even-see-the-code-anymore/

SEE THE REFERENT (the object being described) NOT THE REFERENCE (the code, symbol, model)

Which suggests that reality—that me, you, Earth, universe, etc.—is fundamentally some sort of abstract object*1 existing outside spacetime. Hm. — Art48

Yes, we humans are essentially "abstract mathematical objects"*1 in space-time. I have arrived at a similar conclusion, except I typically use a more general term for reference to both the subjective objects of minds, and the objective things of physical senses : Information. From a scientific perspective, Mathematics*2 may be the fundamental aspect (essence) of reality. But, for Philosophical purposes Information*3 may be more broadly applicable. Math seems to be the most abstract form of Generic Information*4, yet it is the logical structure of the physical world.

Abstract objects*1 are not knowable by physical senses, but only by mental introspection or by communication with other minds. So, they are in the space-time world, but not of the physical world. Space-time is itself an abstract concept, that we measure indirectly by observing physical changes in the environment. Even the causes of change, Energy & Forces, are abstract concepts, not material things. We only know them indirectly by their effects on matter.

In my personal thesis, I refer to the universal power-to-enform (causation) as EnFormAction*5. And the logically necessary First Cause (the Enformer, the Programmer, the Great Mathematician, etc) is the only abstract thing that exists prior-to and outside the evolving (self-enforming) space-time world. I assume that you lean toward Platonism instead of Nominalism. Can you see the connection between Enformationism and your own proposal of a Mathematical universe? :smile:

*1. Abstract Object :
One doesn’t go far in the study of what there is without encountering the view that every entity falls into one of two categories: concrete or abstract. . . . Though there is a pervasive appeal to abstract objects, philosophers have nevertheless wondered whether they exist. The alternatives are: platonism, which endorses their existence, and nominalism, which denies the existence of abstract objects across the board.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
Note : while Mathematical Objects are typically accepted as real, in some sense, by pragmatic physicists & mathematicians, their Ideal (abstract ; non-concrete) existence puts them in the same ontological category as Souls & Ghosts. Hence, philosophically controversial.

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*3. Information :
Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. At the most fundamental level information pertains to the interpretation of that which may be sensed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

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

*5. EnFormAction : The creative act of enforming; to give form to the formless.
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law or principle of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force of the universe. AKA : The innovative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I don't agree with you that we are arguing, on this forum, about whose model is "Closer To Truth"; the way I see it we are arguing for how things seems to each of us, from our own perspectives. — Janus

Perhaps. But don't you think each poster on a philosophy forum is trying to get as close as possible to ultimate truth : Ontology & Epistemology? Don't we tend to judge other opinions by how close they are to our personal model of true (ultimate) Reality --- even though we are aware that our models are merely approximations of The Truth? Science may be content with pragmatic understanding, but Philosophy aspires to ultimate Ideal Truth. Kant merely advised philosophical humility, in view of human limitations. Our ultimate sky-castles are constructed from mundane proximates.

Some models of ultimate Reality -- belief systems (-isms) -- include Meta-Physics (beyond Phenomena) while some exclude Noumena from consideration. Ironically, some posters seem to think they should be limited to pragmatic space-time (i.e. scientific) questions on a Philosophical forum. But, as you noted, even Kant couldn't help asking Ultimate Questions about the roots of Reality that lie beyond mundane Phenomenal experience via the senses. And the only way to such theoretical speculative knowledge is via rational inference from both personal experience and the shared experience of hypothetical conjectures. ad astra per aspera. :smile:

From the OP :
But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.
Note 1 : Isn't it ironic that Kant proposed both Transcendental Idealism and ding an sich, while believing in God (rational theology)? Regarding transcendent Truth, God only knows; but philosophers & cosmologists strive to "know the mind of god" (Hawking).
Note 2 : One answer to to OP might be : "Who cares? We'll never know. Besides, anything Noumenal or Transcendent has nothing to do with our Phenomenal Physical lives". But it's typical of Philosophers that they care about things that are not immanent phenomenal physical objects : e.g. beliefs, possibilities, cosmologies, worldviews, etc.

Einstein's Quest :
In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

thing-in-itself :
…philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to…
https://www.britannica.com/topic/thing-in-itself

Closer to Truth :
Asking Ultimate Questions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_to_Truth

Our experiences may be different, but if they have nothing in common then they would not qualify as experiences of reality, even though they might qualify as real experiences. We actually don't perceive reality at all, we conceive it. — Janus

Yes. That's what I was implying with the map vs terrain examples. But, to gain leverage in philosophical arguments, some people act as-if their personal map is the true model of reality. And, some claim that an abstraction -- sometimes labelled "settled science" -- is the final authority on Truth. Ideally, "settled science" would serve as a compendium of what all observer's models should "have in common". Yet philosophical debates tend to focus on unsettled marginal science : e.g. the meaning of quantum paradoxes, such as the Many Worlds interpretation. :smile:

Map–territory relation :
The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

Map/Territory Fallacy :
“The map is not the territory” is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself. According to Korzybski, models stand to represent things, but they are not identical to those things.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

In order to approximate "true" reality (ding an sich), we would have to compare our varying worldviews, looking for areas of overlap. — Gnomon
This is not Kant, though; according to him we cannot approximate to the noumenal. We can only say how things seem in our experience, and if our experiences align, then we have empirical reality. Empirical reality is reality for us according to Kant. So, logically we can then ask "what about reality in itself or beyond the "for us"?", and Kant's answer is that we can have no idea of what that could be. — Janus

That aspirational assertion is merely my opinion, not attributed to Kant. Even though we cannot directly know the ding an sich, we can -- via the observational methods of Science, and the reasoning of Philosophy -- construct models of ultimate reality that "approximate" the true ding. On this forum we argue about whose model is Closer To Truth, which is the pragmatic goal of Philosophy. Even Kant seemed motivated to get as close as possible to Transcendental Idealism. :cool:

PS__Was the TI term a case of sour grapes?

The meaning of SOUR GRAPES is disparagement of something that has proven unattainable.

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84710/kant-vs-scientific-rationalism-do-we-need-the-ding-an-sich

I read Kant more as saying that what we experience is a human reality. — Janus

Yes, vivid personal subjective realities. My experience is my reality. But, it's just one of many experienced "realities", because your experience may be different. For those born blind, their "reality" lacks the visual evidence of light-reflecting matter. So they may substitute imaginary representations of things, completely different. However, if they compare their partial subjective realities*1, they may be able to compile a comprehensive representation (objective reality), that more closely resembles the "reality" that sighted people experience. Kant's distinction was not between individual subjective reality, and collective objective reality -- that had already been made by previous generations of philosophers. Instead, he distinguished those mental models (maps) from ultimate Reality beyond*2 human experience.

In order to approximate "true" reality (ding an sich), we would have to compare our varying worldviews, looking for areas of overlap. Yet for scientific purposes, we have to ignore areas influenced primarily by personal emotional commitments and conventional belief systems. But even then, we are not guaranteed to reach the core reality. For example, not long ago scientists thought they had catalogued all forms of Energy & Matter. But now they have different opinions on the substance of Dark Matter & Dark Energy, constituting most of cosmic reality. :smile:

*1. Subjective Reality :
Knowledge of objective reality is gained by the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. 2. Subjective reality is the inner world of the mind. The world of emotions and feelings.
https://corporatecoachgroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective-reality

*2. I don't mean supernatural, but comprehensive, global, universal view of Nature, which we can only imagine, based on what we experience via our limited senses.


BLIND MEN EXPERIENCING REALITY



THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT.
A HINDOO FABLE.
I.
IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
II.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
III.
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
IV.
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
V.
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
VI.
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
VII.
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
VIII.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

The unseen ding an sich : the whole system of many parts

Also, I'd say taking consciousness as foundational and the world as derivative is similar to Descartes’ certainty about inner sensations (I think therefore I am) while admitting the world he perceived might be caused by some evil demon. — Art48

Regarding the OP, I'd like to re-word that statement. I take Causal Information as foundational and Mental Consciousness as derivative. Generic Information (the power to enform, to create) may or may not be conscious, but since mental consciousness did in fact emerge from eons of physical change, the potential for awareness must have been inherent in the First Cause -- or Initial Conditions, if you prefer. Causation is definitely directional, and possibly intentional, but I don't know what those intentions are. I can only guess about why the "demon" wanted to cause Descartes to believe a lie.

I'm just beginning to read a new book by astronomer Caleb Sharf : The Ascent of Information. Although he is a professional scientist, he writes like a philosopher, trying to see the big picture, instead of the microscopic view of Reductionism. In the first chapter, he says that "a number of thinkers . . . have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". Currency is a medium of exchange, so Information is portrayed as the medium of Change (the essence of Energy) circulating within the world system.

Sharf goes on to note that physicist John A. Wheeler "explored the notion that the ultimate nature of physical reality is inextricably linked to observation and experimental interrogation" That may sound odd, but a lot of Quantum Physics is weird. Referring to quantum collapse of superposition, due to experimentation, he goes on to say that "the very act of observation or interaction is what causes their properties to snap into focus. In other words, this is a participatory universe of yes/no information, in which, as Wheeler put it, we get 'it from bit' " The implication is that the experimenter's setup is like a binary yes-or-no question : is a particle there or not? And the answer is to produce a local particle from a continuous wave-form : Voila!.

The notion of a "Participatory Universe" reminds me of the concept of Universal Mind/Consciousness. Yet in Wheeler's model, it's the human experimenter who consciously participates in the processes of physics by formulating a yes/no (1/0) question mathematically. Which leaves open the bigger question : is the universe conscious of our probing, or just a machine grinding out evolutionary products? In quantum experiments, the human operates the machine to output an answer. But is the response conscious or automatic? What do you think? :chin:

I wasn't referring to Kantian ideas. I intended to point out that we don't experience an external world, meaning that we don't experience anything that we know to be a mind-independent external world, even if an inference to a mind-independent external world might seem most plausible. — Janus

OK. But that description sounds Kantian to me. Scientists & Philosophers may be aware that their observations are subjective, even when they are presented as objective : "most physicists agree that . . . . is a fact". Yet, non-philosophers, who haven't given it much thought, might not "know" that their experience is not of direct reality, but of the external world as mediated via an internal "frame" of prior beliefs. Kant seemed to be saying that, although we might infer an objective "mind-independent external world", our internal working model of that world is actually a subjective construct. Hence, we like to think we are seeing reality, when in fact we are imagining an artificial (man-made) model of reality. :cool:

Also, I don't know what you mean by "realist's noumenal worldview". — Janus

Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the realist's imaginary model of the world, which may be intuitively accepted as the true objective reality. That's how we navigate through the world, using our mental maps as proxies for the actual terrain. But on a philosophical forum we soon discover that my noumenal worldview (my map) may be rejected by others with different maps of true reality : e.g. Idealism vs Materialism. :nerd:

Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism. — Gnomon
I not sure what you mean here. To my way of thinking functionalism just says that mind is a real function of the brain, which is again a kind of realism, if not strict eliminative physicalism. — Janus

Off the top of my pointy head, I was trying to say that a Function*1 is not a material thing, but an inference about a Causal Process*2 : not Real, but Ideal. The Brain is a real tangible object, but the Mind is an ideal imaginary subject. We know the Mind by rational inference, not by sensory observation. Hence Functionalism treats the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing.

The notion of "Phenomenal Experience" (mental currency) was new to me. But it makes sense that when we discuss the idea of a brain function (not what it is, but what it does) we must translate our perceptions of behavior into a conventional metaphorical language that serves as a representation of a concept that is not an objective thing, but a subjective inference : an idea. :smile:

*1. Function : an inferred causal relationship between an input and output

*2. Causation : Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind.

As I said above, apart from the experience of the "external, objective" world there is also the experience of freedom and moral responsibility, and although we don't directly experience what goes on in other minds, similarly we don't directly experience an external world either, although we do have plenty of experience that provides individual evidence that something exists outside of our skins, just as we have plenty of experience that provides evidence for the existence of other people.. — Janus

I assume you're referring to Kant's ding an sich noumenon*1, which presumably exists "independent of representation and observation". Yet "Universal Mind/Consciousness" as an abstract idea, lacks phenomenal experience. So Realists tend to dismiss such unverifiable ideas, asserting that their phenomenal existence (as brain states)*2 is the only reality. Anything else suffers from the major limitation of Idealism : subjectivity. Which can be dismissed as "imaginary", or "mere opinion", or even "woo-woo" -- if it clashes with the Realist's noumenal worldview.

I just discovered the notion of "Phenomenal Experience"*3 as an argument in favor of Consciousness as a real thing. But I doubt that a Realist would be convinced. They might admit that the human Mind has a general function : processing ideas (representations of experience), while insisting that the mechanism generating that useful function is the material brain. Hence the "function" does not exist "independent of observation". Materialism reserves "experience" for the five physical senses of the body*4. Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism.

The hard distinction between Realism & Idealism seems to imply that "my sensory experience counts as real" but your subjective experience counts only as hearsay. As a defense against manipulations via Faith, such skepticism might be necessary, in order to screen for truth. But openness to the experiences of others results in social cooperation, even in the profession we call Science. But the soft distinction typical of the profession of Philosophy makes a forum for sharing personal, non-empirical, opinions possible. I can import some of your ideas into my own worldview, as long as they pass the Plausible (logical, but not necessarily factual) test. From my perspective, "Universal Mind" may sound reasonable, depending on prior assumptions -- which may or may not be acceptable. :smile:

PS__Personally, I can't make a black vs white distinction between Real & Ideal or Mind & Matter. As you seem to imply, what we know as real is a subjective feeling about the representation of an observation.

*1. Ding An Sich :
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

*2. But what is a brain state, other than a temporary pattern of interrelationships? Its function is in motivated behavior based on belief in a the represented idea.

*3. Phenomenal experiencemight act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centred space—a feature that readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified’.
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2022/1/niac007/6573727

*4. . . . .Omitting the sixth sense of Reason, which ties separate sensory inputs into meaningful, non-physical, patterns of relationships.

*5. In philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that mental states are constituted solely by their functional role, which means, their causal relations with other mental states, sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism. ___Wikipedia

Ok. It makes sense alright and I have a feeling you'll find many takers with regard to self-organization. It also seems to square, quite perfectly, with your Enformy which is G*D (you should learn some Latin, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur). Good job! — Agent Smith

Just a quibble : "Enformy" is a technical scientific concept, equal & opposite to "Entropy" -- not a miracle-working deity. The term is not intended to sound profound, but to be an accurate assessment of how evolution progresses -- via self-organization -- despite the digressive laws of Thermodynamics. :smile:

Enformy : neo-Latin, for Pro (forward) Gressus (to move)

Some genetic re-engineering may have to be done on humans at some point in order to counter the physical and mental effects of living and working in non-Earth environments for extended periods of time. Our ability to genetically re-engineer ourselves will be a new form of hyper-adaptation to extreme environments. — punos

Since natural genetics takes eons to effect change, and humans are aspirational & impatient, it seems quicker & easier & cheaper -- if not aesthetically better -- to outsource our physical improvements to geneless artificial bodies. According to Google, messy, bodily-fluid swapping, STD-fraught, progeny producing, emotionally contaminated human intercourse, is currently being countered by antiseptic sex dolls, that make no long-term demands on humans. No surgical enhancements necesssary. However, some imagination is required. :joke:

PS__Seriously though, even exploring Mars is a job for robots, in the foreseeable future. Humans on Mars would have to be imprisoned in stark artificial habitats. I apologize for dampening your genetic dream, with practical considerations. On the other hand. maybe aliens already adapted to alien habitats will be available in the future for such slave-work, so we won't have to engineer them, a la Blade Runner. :wink:

NEW, IMPROVED SELF-PLEASURING

Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ... — Agent Smith

That's not what I said, or intended. Instead, Generic Information (programmed causation) was responsible for gradual emergence of Minds -- among many other things -- from eons of information processing. For billions of years, Nature got along fine without Minds -- or Universal Consciousness. But natural EnFormAction (energy + direction) laid groundwork for the eventual emergence of rational Minds. Those mammalian minds later evolved self-conscious homo sapiens Minds, that only recently began to take over the creative function of Evolution via Culture.

With that in mind, I would re-word your statement to say that "self-sufficient" Information (EnFormAction) worked automatically for eons (no need for miracles), to construct a world and local environment suitable for warm-blooded vertebrate creatures to proliferate, and to evolve complex brains on top of their up-right spines. Those information-processing brains then evolved cooperative Culture (combined minds) to expand the reach of subjective Information via communication to all sentient creatures on Earth.

What I was implying is that evolutionary EnFormAction functions automatically (self-controlled) like a computer program, with creative feedback loops, to process initial general Information (Forms) into novel & unique forms as outputs. That's an imaginative metaphor, as an attempt to make sense of a world that makes sense to rational minds. The universe is much more "self-sufficient" than any current computer though. For example, it has produced interim outputs (organisms ) that are self-organizing. Does any of that make sense, not as a scientific conclusion, but as a philosophical metaphor? :smile:

Intitial Program Data :
In mathematics and particularly in dynamic systems, an initial condition, in some contexts called a seed value,[1]: pp. 160  is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time (typically denoted t = 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition
Note -- Metaphorically, the Singularity was the program for evolution, and Generic Information was the "seed" containing coded directions (like DNA) and selection criteria for eventual development of Conscious Minds. Unfortunately, the implicit Programmer is beyond the scope of Science, but not out of reach for philosophical conjecture.
Can you see the analogy? Evolution works like a computer, using natural selection to filter out wrong answers to the original question. Today, human programmed computers use artificial selection (programmer's intentions) to weed-out a range of variables, down to a precious few that meet the programmer's criteria. :nerd:


"To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect."
___Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

With intelligent hyper-evolution it would be possible to genetically re-engineer the human hand to have fingers with ball and socket joints instead of hinge joints; alternatively you can get rid of bones all together and have fingers like tentacles. — punos

I agree. But I'd prefer to "engineer" man-made machines, and leave DNA-made machines as they are. Our physical limitations are partly due to our mental excellence in generalized multi-tasking, so we are not stuck in a single evolutionary niche. The girl is pretty, but she might not appreciate it if I tried to wrap my tentacles around her. Yuk! :joke:

BIONIC TENTACLE ARM

What do you make of the QM claim that consciousness is vital to physical processes e.g. in the double slit experiment? — Agent Smith

I doubt that Consciousness per se is responsible for the QM "collapse". Instead, I would say that extraction of Information from superposed (holistic) waveforms cause the statistical state (probability ; potential) to collapse (like a pricked balloon) into particular states (actual photons). That's the basis of John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulate. His idea is sometimes misinterpreted as "mind over matter", because of the confusion between Human Consciousness and Generic Information (i.e. EnFormAction ; the essence of Energy).

"Consciousness" is associated with a particular person, and brain. But Information (EnFormAction) is the general causal process of the world. In my thesis, EnFormAction (the teleological program of Nature) was the driving force of evolution for billions of years --- before Human consciousness emerged in the last million years or so. Therefore, during the pre-human era, waveforms were caused to collapse by energy (information) exchanges when waves intersected & interacted to produce the peaks our senses interpret as particles of matter or energy.

Information (EnFormAction) was entirely physical until evolution complexified the interactions of energy & matter into brains that could process general information into personal meaning (measurement of the environment). Ut Sensum? :smile:

Information exchange vs Conscious measurement :
The claim that an observer is needed to collapse the wave function has injected a severely anthropomorphic element into quantum theory, suggesting that nothing happens in the universe except when physicists are making measurements. An extreme example is Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds theory, which says that the universe splits into two nearly identical universes whenever a measurement is made.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wave-function_collapse/
Note -- the measurement occurs only when the new pattern is interpreted by a mind. Yet physics works in the absence of minds.

NON-CONSCIOUS SLITS CAUSE CONTINUOUS WAVES TO BECOME PARTICULAR

↪Tom Storm
I think the problem with any form of idealism is that we cannot adequately model what we imagine might be going on. We can model the physical because it is observable, but we can model mind only in terms of reasons (and along the lines of how we understand our own), it seems to me. — Janus

That is the crux of the Realism vs Idealism controversy. Our common language is inherently concrete-based (realistic) because our mutual experience is of the (external ; objective) Real world. We only know of other people's mental models from their metaphorical expressions. Only the individual knows what's going on in their own psyche. So the Mind Doctor is working blind.

The physical sciences, such as Physics & Chemistry, can describe their observations in terms of visual & tangible physical properties. But the meta-physical sciences, such as Psychology & History, must communicate their "observations" in terms of analogies to physical behaviors. But analogies & metaphors are subject to contrary subjective interpretations. That's why Psychology & Philosophy are not considered to be hard (concrete) sciences. They are sciences of invisible intangible minds, not quivering jello-brains.

For example, B.F. Skinner assumed that he could put the philosophical Psychology of Freud on a more scientific basis, by ignoring occult mental processes, and focusing on overt physical behavior. IOW, treating humans like non-verbal animals. Consequently, Psychology soon developed in Psychiatry, using drugs & surgery to modify behavior, without much concern for "what it's like" for the patient. Likewise, science-emulating Philosophy tends to treat verbal persons like dumb animals

Today, self-help Pop-Psychology attempts to allow the person to heal their own mind via non-physical interventions such as Meditation. Its methods & language have lapsed back into ancient Western & Eastern forms of mind-centered Philosophy. Yet, there is at least one intermediate mainstream approach that successfully combines both mental & physical treatments : Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. It's a kind of guided self-help process that allows the anxious or depressed patient to "heal thyself". Its technical vocabulary is necessarily analogous to physical treatments, but also metaphorical enough to be understandable by non-professionals. It allows us to "model the mind . . . along the lines of how we understand our own". Maybe we need to develop a Cognitive-Behavioral Philosophy. :smile:

What is meant by consciousness being aware of itself?

Can thoughts ever be aware of themselves or can only the thinker create thoughts without fully knowing what they are? What is being asked? — TiredThinker

We seem to be presented with two different "thinkers" here : General Consciousness vs Specific Thinkers or Thoughts.

In some philosophical or religious worldviews, Godlike Cosmic Consciousness has spawned -- or is produced by -- a multitude of local consciousnesses, and can view the world through the eyes or minds of each of its offspring -- or sentient parts. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing what a CC knows. So for me, It's a hypothetical as-if speculation.

The second postulated "thinker" (res cogitans) seems to be a mundane human thought-processor. And we know from experience that a person can be self-aware in some sense. Physically, we get feedback about the thinker's body via Proprioception (to see one's self). But that sense is typically subconscious. Yet it may be the physical foundation of a conscious meta-physical self-image (model of the self), which includes non-physical memories, qualities & values. The "red dot mirror image" experiments have shown that most vertebrates are self-aware to some degree.

Presumably, humans are also aware of their own abstract thoughts & images. In that case, the whole system is reflecting on a portion of its thinking process. But I would re-word the topical question to imply, that the holistic Thinker -- not the particular Thought -- can be aware of its own being, its position in space-time, and of its own thought processes.

This rambling thought probably has nothing to do with Krisnamurti's Koan. :smile:

SELF-AWARE THINKER


COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS AWARE OF ITS SELF COMPONENTS

Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter. — Agent Smith

Yes. Modern physics has discovered both complementary partnerships, as in wave/particle duality. But it also has evidence for contradictory interactions, as in Particles vs Antiparticles. But, on a cosmic scale, this universe seems to be a non-dual holistic system, in that particular positives & negatives interact dynamically, but also collectively cancel-out to Zero or Neutral values : Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis. :smile:

PS__That complementary holistic notion ain't "sympathetic magic", it's cosmic physics.

Wtf are you talking about? — 180 Proof
:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality? — Agent Smith

I just came across a purported Shakespeare quote that epitomizes 's belittling "arguments" toward forum posts that don't fit his own fossilized philosophy. Ironically, the same quote could be reflected back at the belittler. :joke:

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." ___Anon E. Mous

We can do a great many things and there are few things we can't do that other animals can as far as dexterity so we generally don't think about our limits. But there must be something that could be different that could allow usto do even more? — TiredThinker

Humans have already invented technologies that expand the precision & strength of hand movements. For example, surgeons routinely use robotics to do work that used to require the steady hands of doctors with exceptional eye-hand coordination, and years of training. So it seems that Culture has taken over from Nature the role of evolutionary innovator. :smile:

Where does consciousness begin? Without the language parts of our brains are we even conscious? — TiredThinker

I recently read an article -- can't put my hand on it now -- arguing that human consciousness differs from animal awareness primarily in its use of verbal concepts : i. e. language. It also concluded that human language is both cause & effect of complex social situations. Language allows us to communicate in abstract symbols instead of grunts & gestures. It also allows individuals to function as integral parts of a larger system (society) with common goals & intentions, beyond simple inborn instincts.

The implication, as I recall it, is that consciousness predated language. But its expansion and emergence from basic animal communication of feelings -- e.g. monkey calls that mean "predator!!" -- to more complex and abstract mind pictures (imagination), has resulted in technology & civilization.

Apparently, consciousness began as a form of early-warning radar for animated beings. For example, a worm can't see, but it can feel & smell positive or negative sensations -- food & danger -- in order to wriggle toward or away. As animal mobility increased though, that primitive kind of knowing had to keep pace with the speed of locomotion. And as social interactions complexified, basic awareness of the environment evolved to keep track of a rapidly changing tangle of interrelationships.

Living beings all have some form of immune system -- detecting & dealing with threats to life -- to keep them alive. In single-cell organisms that system is simple & chemical. But in more complex organisms, the life-preserving function became more complex & physical (neural). Then, in humans the need to project current conditions into a not-yet real future, resulted in the ability to conceptualize time & space beyond the scope of the senses. Yet that is a Meta-physical function of Imagination, which as humans, we take for granted. We may equate imagination with consciousness, but not all beings can do so. Basic awareness may be simple & physical. But human consciousness is complex & meta-physical.

So, human consciousness is an evolutionary adaption to the changing conditions of evolution. Physical & Mental progress in evolution results from both feed-back and feed-forward. It allows us to know, not only Now, but Past & Future. And to communicate those figments & fantasies to other humans via language. But try to tell your dog that he's going to the Vet tomorrow, and he'll just smile, and hear: "that's a good boy". :smile:

180 Proof
You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege :grin: ). :chin:
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic. — Agent Smith

A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take 's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.

180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes". :joke:


*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
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/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)

*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?

*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau

*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.

*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/decoding-quantum-thinking-what-it-feels-like-to-think-free

The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective. — Agent Smith

Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded. :smile:


Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere” :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1. :smile:


*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesn’t think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-informational-realism-subverts-materialism/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely. — Agent Smith

No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information. :smile:

PS__ You can choose to take "s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence. :nerd:

The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesop’s Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8

Multiverse :
***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory — Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.

SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR