I try not to mention metaphysics, since I don't know what it means. . . . .
Now there's something to agree with, so long as it isn't taken to have metaphysical implications. — Ludwig V

I've enjoyed discussing the old Freedom vs Determinism question with you. But if you are going to place Metaphysics*1 off-limits in a philosophical forum, my arguments will be nullified, because the whole point is to explore the "metaphysical implications" of physical observations.

From my personal perspective, Philosophy is not Physics, but Meta-physics*2 --- in the scientific Aristotelian sense, not the religious Scholastic sense. Philosophy is about Ideas, not real things. And Freedom is an Idea, that can't be placed under a microscope, but under the penetrating eye of Reason. If you don't like the medieval connotations of the term "metaphysics", let's just call it "Philosophy". :smile:

*1. Aristotle. …metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-philosophy

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

But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". — Gnomon
H'm. I probably don't know enough to evaluate that. But I would have thought that observer choices in setting up experiments and interpreting evidence have always played an essential role in science. Though it is true that scientists have mostly assumed that it is possible to observe phenomena without affecting them, and that only becomes inescapably false at the sub-atomic level. — Ludwig V

Yes. But, at the macro level, the minuscule "observer effect"*1 could be ignored. Only after scientists began probing into the microscopic level of physics did the Observer play a significant role in the outcome of an experiment.

Although the Double-Slit Effect is well-attested, its philosophical & metaphysical implications are still debatable. Some think the Cause of the effect is physical nudging, while others infer that Conscious probing can affect entanglement. No need for us to untangle that conundrum here. We can still draw analogies from physics to metaphysics. :smile:


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

Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect? — Gnomon
Any events that are not determined by cause and effect are indeterminate. Freedom (or at least the philosophical version of it) is a language-game distinct from physics, etc. — Ludwig V

Yes. I was using physical indeterminacy as a parallel analogy to the philosophical question of Freedom vs Determinism. Do you consider philosophy to be an ideal "language game" of no importance in the "real" world?

Classical Physical Determinism (cause & effect) implied that only one course of events is possible*1. But Quantum Physics is uncertain and indeterminate at the fundamental level, allowing more than one path from Cause to Effect. Some scientists inferred that the mind of the scientist could play the role of a Cause in the experiment.

Do you see any philosophical implications of that well-known fact? Indeterminacy is a mathematical concept ; whereas Freedom is a human feeling, derived from lack of obstacles to Willpower*2. Do you see any relationship between physical freedom (mathematical value) and mental freedom*3 (metaphysical value)? :smile:


*1. Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

*2. Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon. ___Wikipedia

*3. Quantum Consciousness :
New research indicates that consciousness may rely on quantum mechanics. Perhaps the brain does not operate in a "classical" way.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/

Yes. Physics doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to describe or even acknowledge choices. Ordinary life requires a whole different way of thinking. — Ludwig V

Good point! Until the advent of Quantum physics, scientists had no need for a "conceptual apparatus" of "choices". But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". For example, Multiverses and Many Worlds conjectures would never have occurred to classical physicists. The Uncertainty Principle has raised many questions & eyebrows : not least about the continuity of Cause & Effect in the physical world, and the role of mental Choices in material physics. :smile:

Choices in Physics :
According to quantum physics, when we choose a path in decision making in our life, do we also create an alternative branch reality that we chose a different path? . . . .
Quantum physics has no model of human intention and decision-making. Usual physicalists would deny any actual decision happening, thinking of consciousness as an (emergent) effect of millions of microscopic neuronal processes.
https://www.quora.com/According-to-quantum-physics-when-we-choose-a-path-in-decision-making-in-our-life-do-we-also-create-an-alternative-branch-reality-that-we-chose-a-different-path

↪Gnomon
Maybe feudalism has some good points. For example, a feudal lord lived with people in a community and could explain their needs and concerns to the king. The lord wasn't some politician who held an occasional town meeting to listen to constituents. He knew them because his mom was in their neighborhood. So, he wasn't a power-hungry politician. — BillMcEnaney

True, but your description sounds like a romantic fairytale version of history : an age of fatherly kings, and courtly knights, and fair maidens, and rustic ignorant peasants. But scientific history is less rosy. Some have described Feudalism as a "Protection Racket". In recent history, something similar to European Feudalism*1 was being established by Hitler in Germany to implement his dream of a Third Reich. At the same time in Asia, the semi-divine Japanese Emperor ruled over a feudal empire of Samurai lords, fair maidens, and millions of contented land-bound peasants. And both attempted to impose their idyllic system of governance upon neighboring countries by military force. But no one could tell the Fuhrer or Heavenly Sovereign that trying to emulate Alexander the Great or Genghis Kahn in the 20th century was not a good idea. It took a distant liberal democratic nation to say "No!" with an atomic bomb.

On the positive side, Feudalism was a stable pragmatic system of land management and government for thousands of years all around the world. In a reality where the fastest mode of communication was a horse & rider, a rigid inherited or appointed hierarchy of lords & vassals & powerless serfs, simply worked. But in order for Feudalism to work in the 21st century, it would have to banish most modern education & technology & the middle class. Fast communication would tend to undermine the absolute authority of a remote king, and his hierarchy of authority. The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones stories describe a romantic but brutal side of top-down Feudalism.

However, maybe you can devise an updated system of government that incorporates the best points of all past systems, and avoids the worst : the stability of Feudalism without the oppression, and the freedom of Democracy without the chaotic politics. :smile:


*1. National Feudalism :
https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/National_Feudalism

Yes, and they are less than persuasive for that reason. . . .
Laplace's demon is a version of fatalistic determinism and easier to refute on logical grounds than causal determinism. — Ludwig V

I think you missed the point of my post in favor of FreeWill for moral agents. Moral arguments carry no weight for scientists. But shouldn't they be indicative for philosophers? I wasn't presenting empirical evidence of freedom from determinism, but merely a suggestive analogy, to indicate that, in natural processes, Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect?

Laplace's Demon was a metaphor*1, similar to my own Determinism Gap conjecture. Obviously, he was not talking about an actual Demon, but a hypothetical fiction. Is there some logical error in his If-Then model? If an omniscient entity exists, then all future states are pre-known. But Determinism is actual & absolute in effect, only if that Causal entity freely chooses to make it so. :naughty:

*1. Spooky Science : Laplace's Demon
The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future. That creature is Laplace's demon.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/
Note --- Although Laplace responded to Napoleon's question about a place for God in his science with : "I have no need for that hypothesis", he felt the need to conjecture a different supernatural agency, whose omniscience is necessary to pre-determine every step into the future.

It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. — Gnomon
If we think of it like that, we are making a mistake. The human mind is a product of Nature and part of it. Or, to put it another way, to think of Nature as something to exploit perpetuates the practices that have landed us with climate change. Worse than that, although we can and do exploit Nature in some ways, Nature also imposes itself on us - witness climate change and antibiotic resistance. It has to be a balance. — Ludwig V

Sorry if my term "exploit" offended your liberal sensibilities. I intended the word to be taken literally --- in the sense of manipulating Nature to derive some benefit to humanity --- but not politically. Everything artificial in the world "exploits" some feature of nature to give humans an advantage over animals. If humans hadn't "exploited" the natural phenomenon of fire, how would they survive the Ice Ages with no natural fur to keep them warm. Yes, the influence works both ways as give & take. But that's a whole other issue.

When we exploit the Causal Gap in Determination, the effect is literally un-natural. I didn't intend to start a Nature vs Culture argument. However, your cell phone is a multifaceted example of such exploitation. It serves the human purpose of storing & transmitting artificial ideas & images in an unnatural manner, by exploiting radio waves to impose artificial patterns that only humans can interpret as meaningful. :nerd:

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. — Gnomon
Yes, I'm aware that there are many examples of systems and situations that reveal that the systems at work in the world are much more complex and much less predictable than our classical models have recognized. They do give us a basis for thinking that human life may be, in the end, not incompatible with scientific explanation. But they do not get us there, any more than simple randomness gets us there. I think that the research into self-constituting autonomous systems, feedback loops and ideas like Conway's Game of Life are much more to the point. — Ludwig V

Personally, I don't think human Life, or Culture, is incompatible with scientific explanation. We are just at the early stages of a science of Complexity & Chaos. Your examples of research into complex feedback & looping systems are along the same lines that the Santa Fe Institute is trying to make compatible with scientific methods. :cool:

I don't think that unpredictability is a significant phenomenon here. Volcanoes and football matches, not to mention the weather, are all unpredictable. But no-one thinks that free will is involved. — Ludwig V

Again, I was using weather complexity as a metaphor, from which to draw inferences about human exploitation of natural properties. I wasn't implying freewill in Natural phenomena, but in Cultural noumena, which is commonly assumed to result from collective human intentions & purposes & willpower. Here's just one of many examples of someone who thinks FreeWill is associated with the unpredictability of Complexity*2. Google "Emergence" and you will find many articles with similar associations. :smile:

*2. Emergence and Free Will :
"Free will is the ability to make choices, but if our bodies and brains are governed by deterministic physical laws, our choices are completely determined. . . .
The complex systems in this book suggest the alternative that free will, at the level of options and decisions, is compatible with determinism at the level of neurons (or some lower level). In the same way that a traffic jam moves backward while the cars move forward, a person can have free will even though neurons don’t.
https://runestone.academy/ns/books/published/complex/HerdsFlocksAndTrafficJams/EmergenceAndFreeWill.html
Note --- Emergence is a Holistic phenomenon, which is overlooked by Reductive scientific methods.



PS___
although Laplace and Napoleon argued about who had created the universe – a chain of natural causes, which was also responsible for its preservation, according to Laplace; that plus divine intervention according to Napoleon and Herschel himself – Laplace does not seem to have used that brilliant phrase as an answer.
https://institucional.us.es/blogimus/en ... n-and-god/

Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. — Gnomon
The orthodox articulation of the debate requires either positing free will as a magical kind of cause that is causally determined and/or a gap in causality that allows this unique kind of event to occur. Neither is at all plausible. — Ludwig V

Yes. I'm aware that my "articulation" of a Causal Gap in Determinism is un-orthodox. But it's based on science, not magic. Beginning in the early 2000s, scientists began to study Complexity and Chaos seriously. The Santa Fe Institute was established specifically to bring together physicists & mathematicians, and a few philosophers, to learn about some of the Uncertainties in Nature that puzzled the early Quantum pioneers. Quantum Mechanics seemed to be missing a few gears. So, the Uncertainty Principle has been postulated as an opportunity for the exercise of FreeWill. In opposition, the Conjecture of SuperDeterminism*1 has been proposed, but as the link below notes, its argument seems circular.

For my own philosophical purposes, I'm trying to think ahead of pragmatic science. The metaphor I'm postulating is not yet "plausible" for scientific purposes, but I think it can provide fodder for philosophizing. Most traditional arguments against Fatalistic Determinism are based on Morality. But this metaphor is based on physical Contingency*2 : opportunities for innovation.

Based, in part, on the studies linked in my previous post, I have concluded that Magic is not necessary to control Destiny. Instead, Physics has found Gaps in Natural Determinism for Meta-Physics to fill with the kind of statistical Potential that Terrence Deacon described as "Causal" or "Constituitive Absence"*3. That counter-intuitive notion may begin to make sense though, if you combine it with Ed Lorenz's non-linear complexity equations that, when graphed by a computer {dynamic image below}, reveal an absence at the center of Chaos, that has been labeled a Strange Attractor. Complexity is indeterminate, due to the Contingencies of Initial Conditions.

That hole at the center of Determinism may be "strange" but it's not a god-of-the-gaps conjecture. It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. We know it happens --- we call it Culture*4 --- but explaining exactly how mind-over-matter works may take more time. For now, we can draw upon Complexity & Chaos science for philosophical metaphors to help us understand how human Will can evade Fate.

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. It's called Creativity. :smile:


*1. Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? :
In a recent video, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, whose work I admire, notes that superdeterminism eliminates the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics. . . .
The arguments seem circular : the world is deterministic, hence quantum mechanics must be deterministic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/

*2. Contingency vs Destiny :
"Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life used the story of the origin of animals during the Cambrian radiation to argue that contingency has had a dominant role in the history of life. . . . .
Although contingency may play a central role in many other complex adaptive systems, few have explored the importance of contingency and determinism, and this discussion has been largely lacking at SFI".
https://santafe.edu/events/contingency-and-determinism-in-complex-adaptive-systems

*3. What is Constitutive Absence?
A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

*4. Nature vs Culture :
Nature didn't give us wings to fly to the moon. But it gave us the ability to impose our collective Will upon the physical world by means of Culture : human intellectual & intentional acheivements.


PS___ Notice that the moving dot --- a point in statistical phase space --- cycles over time toward infinity, but it never crosses its own path, and it never enters the Destiny Gap in the center. This may be the Absence that Deacon labelled "Causal".

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

Your Fork-in-the-Road argument may illustrate the notion of Free Will choices. But as a philosophical proof, it may or may not be convincing to determinists. Nevertheless, I agree that world Causation is both Deterministic and Indeterminate (undecided, uncertain). Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. Yet the unconstrained choice itself is not random (chaotic)*1, but determined by future-aimed intention.

Materialist arguments against FreeWill tend to be based on Physics, not Metaphysics. So, here's a physical analogy of that BothAnd process, both universally deterministic, and locally indeterminate. It can be found in Chaos Theory, sometimes labeled "deterministic chaos"*2. In the 1960s, meteorologist Ed Lorenz did experiments in weather simulations, and summarized his findings in the Lorenz Equations. The math, when graphed, looked a bit like a butterfly*5 {image below}, and eventually inspired the meme of a "Butterfly Effect" : a butterfly in Brazil could indirectly cause a tornado in Texas --- depending on initial conditions, and statistical absences (missing data points).

The Lorenz equations are completely deterministic, but inherently unpredictable. From preset Initial Conditions, the dynamic process will evolve over time into a graph that cycles around so-called "Attractors", as-if bound by gravity. But there's no mass at the center, only empty statistical space (potential). In Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon used that physical principle of a self-organizing dynamic system as an illustration of "downward causation"*3. However, "An attractor does not "attract" in the sense of a field of force; rather it is the expression of an asymmetric statistical tendency"*4.

The statistical nature of Nature was found to be fundamental in Quantum Physics. So perhaps, that mathematical structure has gaps like the Cosmic Voids*6 {image below} in the distribution of spatial matter. Anyway. it's a neat metaphor for the gaps in Determinism that leave empty space (junctions ; decision points) to be filled by human Choices. :nerd:



*1. Does freedom mean chaos?
Freedom is an adjective describing a state of being. It means one can act without limit or restraint in some form or manner. Example being freedom of speech, one is allowed to speak his opinions without feeling limited from federal law. Chaos is describing the landscape in which the being is making those decisions.
https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-lead-to-chaos

*2. Deterministic Chaos :
This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as: Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Note --- I assume that, by "approximate", Lorenz meant local causes and effects. That's why the eventual Butterfly Effect (Texas Tornado) is typically far from the initial state (Brazil Butterfly). In other words, the effect is indirect. Likewise, my mental choice to start or stop my 3500lb material car, is indirect --- mediated by machinery.

*3. MInd has Causal Efficacy :
"In the end, mind has causal efficacy because it is itself a hole, an attractor, and by disturbing the metaphorical shape of its own attractor"
https://ruminations.blog/2017/06/27/review-deacon-incomplete-nature/
Note --- Deacon called that "hole" at the focal point of a chaotic attractor an example of "causal absence". Hence, the choosing Mind is a Determining Factor of subsequent events.

*4. https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/01/we-need-better-analogies.html

*5.

*6.

↪Gnomon
Sure. But I was interested in how the OP was using these terms.

Terms like conservative and libertarian and right wing seem almost meaningless these days. And we can be sure that almost any Western government's chief allegiance is not to the people but to corporations and banks. What was Gore Vidal's salient quote? "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings." — Tom Storm

Me too. Being apolitical by nature, I wasn't familiar with the notion of American "High Toryism" or Western "Confucianism. So, I looked-up those terms.

In any case, the "fake news" media seem to be reporting a rebound trend away from chaotic Democracy toward orderly Autocracy. They envision a popular swing in favor of strong-man Right-wing leaders in US and Europe. I get the impression that modern politics historically oscillates between Right & Left extremes. But generally, the overall effect has been somewhere in the middle. Now though, Fascism has had almost four generations to shed its "evil" connotations, and to look "heroic" in hindsight.

In practice, the "Property Party" seems to support whichever candidate best serves their interest as Feudal Lords. I guess that us landless serfs in the hinterlands are best advised to keep our heads down as the sword-wielding landlords duke it out in the Capitalist capitals. May the best Oligarch win. :wink:

By the way, though I'm a native-born Irish American, I believe in North American High Toryism instead of American conservatism. That's partly why Confucianism interests me. I suggest "American conservatism" may be an oxymoron because it seems to be Locke's classical liberalism. — BillMcEnaney

Disclaimer : not an expert on any of these socio-political concepts. But for clarification of terms :

High Toryism has been described by Andrew Heywood as neo-feudalist in its preference for a traditional hierarchical and patriarchal society over modern freedom and equality,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory

How close are Confucian ideas to the American conservatism of our day?
One thing, too, that I should point out is that conservatism in the West is often confused with libertarianism, because both tend to look very skeptically at the state. One could never confuse a Confucian with a libertarian, because Confucianism is about holding office, being a bureaucrat, managing the evolution of the social organism. It had no place for liberty or the individual or the rule of law.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/08/confucianism-conservatism-east-jonathan-chaves.html

Classical liberalism :
Considered the Father of Liberalism, John Locke wrote two treatises on government attacking absolute monarchy and supporting a more limited view of government. While his conception of liberalism is explicitly based on a theology many people would dispute, his reasoning has been applied in secular conditions to great success.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/classical-liberalism-explained/

I'll argue this way (and Kant is no way responsible for my errors). Kant's was about knowledge. His gold standard for knowledge was science - then as now understood to be the science of nature. "But," he asked himself, "how does that work? what grounds it?" — tim wood

Excellent observation. Both Plato & Aristotle were doing Science in 500BC, but walking the tightrope without a net of technology-enhanced empirical evidence. And both saw a necessary distinction between physical Nature (Real) and metaphysical Theories (Ideal). So, Kant was merely updating that ancient science, with almost 1800 years of empirical & theoretical knowledge. Descartes' Discourse on Method had already boiled it down to the basics : the Observer, the "I" whose existence cannot be doubted, is the foundation of all other knowledge.

Therefore, Kant grounded his science in the distinction between Observer (noumena) and Nature (phenomena). These categories are equivalent to the Ideal vs Real dichotomy of the early scientist/philosophers, who made no professional distinction between Scientist & Philosopher. But they did ground their knowledge in both physical (phusis) & psychological (meta-physical) forms of information. :smile:

He noted that one theory was that nature was all "out there." But how if it's all out there can we move beyond mere observation - this being Hume's question? Alternatively, it's all a creation of the mind - but how then do we know anything of what we call nature? His resolution was through a synthesis of the two. — tim wood

Kant's Transcendental distinction was between "out there" empirical things and "in here" mental ideas about things. Hence, our knowledge of Nature consists of sensory appearances (haecceity), and rationally-inferred essences (quiddities). So, we don't know those ideal essences directly, but only by inferences from observations. And Hume had already noted a problem with Induction of general principles from limited observations of instances. As you noted, Kant proposed a synthesis of Ideal essences and Real appearances : the unobservable ding an sich, which we must accept as an unobtainable Ideal that we only approximate in our ideas & theories. :nerd:


Transcendental idealism is the view that objects in space are “outer” in the empirical sense but not in the transcendental sense. Things in themselves are transcendentally “outer” but appearances are not.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

The Problem of Induction :
Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

PS___ I'm not an expert on these quirky questions. So my remarks are only an attempt to clarify my own understanding of the knowledge problem : how do we verify what we know?

The "hard problem" is not a real problem. It is like the difficulty of cutting apart concepts using scissors. If you think that all dividing is done using knives and scissors, it is a very hard to know how we can divide the ideas of red and green. The problem is not in the dividing, but in demanding that it be done using unsuitable methods. — Dfpolis

Yes. The Hard Problem is not a "real" problem, it's an "ideal" problem. It's not a Scientific problem, but a Philosophical dilemma. It's not a problem of isolated material things, but of integrated mental concepts.

The "unsuitable methods" are those of Philosophy, as contrasted with Physics. "Cutting apart concepts using scissors" is a reductive method, which converts a whole concept into disconnected bits. The Properties of the analyzed bits may not be the same as the Qualia of the whole concept. :nerd:

Except for the reference to non-human animals, this is very Aristotelian. He characterizes the mind/intellect (nous) as nothing until it thinks something. He would say that we have the potential to know and objects have the potential to be known, but neither is actually anything until knowing occurs. — Dfpolis

In Physics there is no such thing as Potential, since it is nothing until actualized. But it is a useful Philosophical notion, allowing us to think about how Nothing can become Something. For example, an isolated AAA battery has Zero voltage, but the potential for 1.5 volts, when actualized by plugging into a complete circuit : a whole recursive system.

Like the concept of Time (a process of becoming), the concept of Mind is not a particular Thing, but a continuum of Knowing. So, when we analyze Consciousness --- the process of transforming incoming objective sensory data into subjective meaning --- we gain bits of digital Data but lose the continuous personal Meaning of a complete concept. Nous is nothing (potential) until it thinks about something, then it becomes an Idea, an immaterial representation of something.

Sorry, I'm just riffing on a theme, for my own amusement, using unsuitable methods. :smile:

Determinism connotes a colder, more calculated existance — Frog

Modern Determinism typically looks to Quantum Physics to underwrite the notion that "Randomness rules!" But it may not be that cut & dried.

Quora forum's resident physics expert, Victor Toth, said recently : "Quantum mechanics says nothing about determinism. . . . Interpretations of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, are a different story." He later summarizes : "In this case, we have a theory that is deterministic but nonlocal. . . . . but in the end,all this interpretation business is firmly in the realm of philosophy, not physics" {my bold}

So, maybe the objective world is neither Deterministic nor Freewheeling, but it's subjective philosophers who favor one flavor or another. :grin:

What is the difference between Fate and Determinism? Is there one at all? — Frog

gave an interesting distinction : romantic Fate vs pragmatic Determinism.

The ancient Greeks observed the same less-than-ideal living conditions that modern Determinists do. But they gave a semi-religious explanation : the ups & downs of life result, not from the intentional antics of boistrous superhuman gods, but the calm repetitive rhythmic work of rather mundane thread-weavers, arbitrarily spinning a variety of different-colored stories : some very good, some awfully bad, some just tolerable.

Yet Fate is not considered romantic because of any heroic accomplishments, but because even heroes rise & fall due to uncertain haphazard turns of events, despite their own efforts to thwart fate. So, the Stoic ideal (amor fati) was to act as-if you are in control of your own destiny even though Providence is not in your hands.

Modern dry-as-dust Determinism doesn't think anybody is in control, especially not supernatural beings. Instead, it views mathematical randomness as essential to the real material world. Ironically, mathematical randomness allows long streaks of what could be called Good Luck in the midst of So-So or Bad Luck. Which is why gamblers tend to be Optimists, instead of Fatalists. :joke:

In his "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," Locke makes an argument against the "innate ideas" of the rationalists. He is essentially trying to rebut the claim that all people have, by nature, certain ideas (e.g., an understanding of the principle of non-contradiction). — Count Timothy von Icarus

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues against the Empiricist belief that ideas only derive from personal experience. However, his examples of "innate ideas" consist mostly of knee-jerk emotions, such as fear of snakes, that seem to be programmed into human genes via transpersonal evolutionary experiences. I'm not sure that's what Plato had in mind though. And Aristotle argued that humans do not inherit knowledge of First Principles (e.g non-contradiction), which must be derived by rational methods.

So, maybe some "ideas" are innate, and others taught, and others acquired by personal effort & experience. In any case, some cultural prejudices seem to be based on the notion of positive or negative human "natures" that are inborn virtues or vices, not learned ideas. Locke argued in favor of natural "rights" of citizens, but did he believe in the divine "right" of kings & nobles to rule over the inferior & ignoble masses? Do Rights qualify as Ideas? :smile:


Abstract. In Posterior Analytics 2.19, Aristotle argues that we cannot have innate knowledge of first principles because if we did we would have the most precise items of knowledge without noticing, which is impossible.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BROACO-24

If its claims are true, I believe the article may be on the right path to dissolving this problem - especially the question of why we experience qualia at all. — Luke

I found the article scientifically interesting, but philosophically unsatisfying. As I noted to : "The Aeon article is extremely interesting in terms of the science, but it only describes a separate pathway for sensory signals to reach the brain, and sheds no light on how those signals are interpreted into a meaningful mental experience" --- how we experience Qualia.

In Semiology, a Signal is distinguished from a Sign, in that a "signal" is not inherently meaningful to the observer, but a "sign" has personal significance to the recipient of the signal*1. That distinction is what Gregory Bateson defined as Information or Meaning*2 : "the difference that makes a difference" to a sentient viewer. So, a camera can detect a Signal (e.g. photon), but only a mind will interpret it as a meaningful Sign (e.g. predator!).

As you noted, a key distinction is the ability to "take ownership" (make it personal ; subjective) of the incoming objective information. The article's author seems to assume that feedback loops in the brain could somehow convert an abstract quantitative Signal into a meaningful qualitative Sign. And I agree. But how? That's the philosophical "hard question". :smile:


*1. Sign :
In semiotics, a sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sign_(semiotics)
Note --- A "sign itself" (signal) is some physical event (Quanta of energy) that can be used to convey information. But the energy (e.g. light) must be interpreted by the receiver into meaning (a sign). For example, smoke rising into the air only indicates that perhaps a bush is burning, but pulsed smoke signals from Indians on a bluff indicate that some intentional message is available to one who knows the code.

*2. Information :
The anthropologist Gregory Bateson's phrase “the difference that makes a difference” has a powerful and intuitive resonance. He was talking about how a 'difference' can represent information that helps us see a situation from a different angle. This can reveal new possibilities for understanding or acting.
https://metalogue.co.uk/2023/01/23/how-did-we-get-back-here-again/
Note --- The first difference is a physical event (signal) and the second difference is a meaningful change (significance) in the mind of the observer : one who can tell the difference. For example, Anatole France is attributed with creating the meme, “Vive la difference!” referring to the differences between women and men. That gender difference is typically significant only to one of the diametrically opposite sex. Alphabet genders (LGBTQ) only muddle the signal.

*3. FWIW, here are a few more comments on the Aeon article :

A. In mammals, an incoming signal can be just quantitative : yes or no (1 or 0). But a sensation is a range of quantities : pain from 0 to 10. For humans, a sensation can be qualified as a metaphor, a likeness ; what it is like.

B. A Quantum is a unit of Perception. A Quale is a unit of Conception. Both signal & sign are transmitted via Energy, but the mind must convert objective sensory Quanta into subjective sentient Qualia.
Quale : a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.

C. Psychonic energy may explain the physical signals, but not the subjective meaning of sensations.

D. Self consciousness = self ownership

E. Qualitative sensations are evaluations

It’s called ‘the hard problem’ for a reason! You’re dealing with a question that is at the basis of a great many philosophical questions and there are no easy answers. — Wayfarer

The April-May 2024 issue of Philosophy Now has an article by Raymond Tallis entitled The Illusion of Illusionism. Speaking of Consciousness, Tallis says, “There is . . . . nothing in matter or energy as seen through the eyes of physics that explains how a part of the material world might become aware of itself”. {my bold} The Aeon article is extremely interesting in terms of the science, but it only describes a separate pathway for sensory signals to reach the brain, and sheds no light on how those signals are interpreted into a meaningful mental experience.

In the Aeon article Humphrey quotes Encyclopedia Britannica (1929) : "One theory holds that each atom of the physical body possesses an inherent attribute of consciousness". {my bold} But Humphrey seems to think we have "moved on" from that Panpsychism solution to the Hard Problem. Ironically, the "all mind" approach has recently become popular among some prominent psychological scientists : e.g. Christof Koch.

Humphrey seems to favor the Psychonic Theory*1: "The psychonic theory contends, in the end, that consciousness equals synaptic function. It is evident where consciousness, defined as psychonic energy,".{my bold} It describes a stimulus/response mechanism that produces an "electrical aura", but nothing we could interpret as conscious awareness. Therefore, to be effective, that Psychonic Energy must include the missing something that Tallis noted..

My own pet theory is philosophical instead of scientific, and it postulates a form of Energy that could be described as Psychonic, but I call it Enformy, alluding to Plato's Forms. And, like Panpsychism, it postulates that the potential for Consciousness is inherent in the Energy that causes all transformations in the material world. So, my hybrid theory has one foot in Physicalism, and one in Panpsychism.

My amateur philosophical thesis says that there is "something in matter and energy" that might explain how the physical world could become aware of itself. That "something" is the power to transform one kind (form) of thing into another. It is implicit in the program of Evolution, which began with nothing but a speck of Potential, and constructed the vast multiplex world of matter/energy/mind we now sentiently "see" around us*2. Unfortunately, the original source of that transformative power will be another "hard" philosophical problem.

I may have more to say about the Blindsight article in another post. But I'm in over my head as it is, so the less I say the better. . . . for now. As you said, there are no easy philosophical answers. :smile:


*1. The psychonic theory of consciousness
If human behaviour is composed of Unit Responses and if, in the preceding section, without any reference at all to consciousness, we have briefly described what such a response is and how it is determined, can we say with the behaviorist that there is no need to postulate the entrance of any conscious factor in the process beginning with stimulus and ending with final reaction?
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2006-20942-004

*2. Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sentience#:~:text=Sentience%20is%20the%20capacity%20to,From%3A%20Neuroscience%2C%202022

This is to conflate two different ideas in Aristotle. What's usually translated as 'function' is 'ergon', the special nature of what is named, e.g. a knife cuts, humans engage in soul-based rational consideration. This is different to 'telos' or 'end', the purpose of an activity. — mcdoodle

Thanks. Yet I think Aristotle did associate both ideas in his discussion of Natural Purpose.
The "everything has a purpose" quote combines several words & meanings into a definition of Teleology*1 : essential nature (phusis) + work (ergon) => ultimate aim (telos). However, the universal Purpose (telos) of Nature is not the local purpose (ergon) of any particular element.

Instead of postulating Intelligent Design*2 though, he used more abstract & impersonal terms like First Cause & Final Cause. The initial Cause can also be interpreted as "design intent", which produces Essential Nature, which is processed by the teleological work of Evolution, to eventually result in the ultimate Goal : the Final Cause. Hence, Teleology is the Intentional Logic inherent in progressive Evolution.

Of course, Ari probably had only a rudimentary notion of Natural Progression*3, but his First Cause could do the Darwinian Selection, and the Formal Causes (natural laws) would produce the physical novelty (mutations) in the Material Cause (elements) necessary to fabricate the intended Final Form of Nature-in-general. Ari didn't specify, and we moderns still don't know, what that ultimate state will be. But we can, like Aristotle, recognize the signs of Intention (Prohairesis) in the progression of Nature from hot-dot to comfortably-cool-Cosmos. Physics (machine) needs Meta-Physics (intention) in order to evolve from Big Bang to Poetry to Philosophy. :smile:


*1. télos, lit. "end, 'purpose', or 'goal'") is a term used by philosopher Aristotle to refer to the final cause of a natural organ or entity, or of human art.

*2. Did Aristotle believe in intelligent design?
Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but unlike Dembski did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Design_Yes_Intelligent_No

*3. Aristotle's Evolution :
The concept of evolution is as ancient as Greek writings, where philosophers speculated that all living things are related to one another, although remotely. The Greek philosopher Aristotle perceived a “ladder of life,” where simple organisms gradually change to more elaborate forms.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/principles-of-evolution/history-of-the-theory-of-evolution

Regarding the significance of teleology and its place in Aristotle's metaphysics, I happened on a very succinct explanation in a video talk by cognitive scientist Lisa Feldman Barrett. She simply says that teleology is 'an explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose which they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise'. That says a lot in very few words, as it demonstrates the sense in which reason also encompasses purpose for Aristotle, in a way that it does not for modernity. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, we can't see "purpose" in the non-self world with our physical senses, but we can infer Intention from the behavior of people & animals that is similar to our own, as we search for food or other necessities, instead of waiting for it to fall into our mouths. Some of us even deduce Teleology in the behavior of our dynamic-but-inanimate world system, as described by scientific theories. If there is no direction to evolution, how did the hot, dense, pinpoint of potential postulated in Big Bang theory manage to mature into the orderly cosmos that our space-scopes reveal to the inquiring minds of the aggregated atoms we call astronomers. Ironically, some sentient-but-unperceptive observers look at that same vital universe, and see only aimless mindless matter moving by momentum.

The current Philosophy Now magazine has several letters on the topic of Time. One says : "If time is subjective, an observer is needed to make the distinction between past & future, and so to turn a probabilistic quantum phenomenon into a known result." Another responded to Tallis' comment that "the most successful organism is the non-conscious cyanobacteria" with : "Humanity's domination of the planet is so extensive that evolution must be redefined." The next letter notes : "from the outside, reality is matter, from the inside, it's mind".

Aristotle knew nothing of gargantuan galaxies full of whirling worlds, or indeterminate quantum probability, or progressive novelty-creating evolution, or brainless bacterial objectives, but he could "see" that his primitive pre-industrial world was purposeful. "Everything has a function or purpose and its essential nature is to grow and achieve its purpose." https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/ :smile:


Teleonomy : a sign of Aristotle's Final Cause : the End or Purpose
This essay brings to mind Terrence Deacon’s Incomplete Nature, FWIW. On what we observe as teleonomy: “…unrealized future possibilities appear to be the organizers of antecedent processes that tend to bring them into existence,…
https://medium.com/@mmpassey/this-essay-brings-to-mind-terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature-fwiw-83a7e2a4b1a7

Within this context, 'noumenal' means, basically, 'grasped by reason' while sensible means 'grasped by thesense organs'. In hylomorphic dualism, this means that nous apprehends the form or essence of a particular - what is really is - and the senses perceive its material appearance. That's the interplay of 'reality and appearance'. Again from the article on Noumenon: — Wayfarer

Thanks. That summary is in agreement my own understanding of the Real/Ideal and Phenomenal/Noumenal dichotomy. But my question was about your characterization of Kant's "equivocation" of that neat two-value division of the knowable world*1. Of course, in philosophical discourse, that "interplay" can get complicated, to the point of paradox.

I have the general impression that both Plato (real/ideal) and Aristotle (hyle/morph) also divided the philosophical arena of discourse into Sensory Observations and Rational Inference. So, I was wondering if Kant had posited a different analysis of the Things & Dings that philosophers elaborate & logic-chop into such tiny bits of meaning. Physical things can be reduced down to material atoms by dissection. And Metaphysical dings (ideas about things), presumably can be analyzed down to conceptual atoms. But does the distinction between Physical & Meta-Physical remain in effect?

That said, your comment about Kant's "confusing equivocation" raised the question in my simple mind : is there a third (non-quibbling) Ontological category of knowledge, other than Phenomenal (sensory) & Noumenal (inference) : perhaps Intuition (sixth sense) that bypasses both paths to knowledge? Is a ding an sich Phenomenal or Noumenal or something else? :smile:


*1. Quote from this thread :
"I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings."
___ Wayfarer

PS___ Post posting, I found this summary of Ways of Knowing. I don't know where it came from, or if it's even relevant to Aristotle's Metaphysical Ontology.

I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings. — Wayfarer

Thanks. But, can you clarify Kant's "equivocation" for me? If the ding an sich is not Phenomenal, is it not then Noumenal by default? Is there a third category of Being : things vs dings vs (?) ? Or more than two ways of Knowing : sensation vs imagination vs (?) ?

I usually think of dings as existing in a Platonic Ideal Realm, or God's Mind, beyond the reach of the human meat-mind --- except as inferred by Reason from the inherent Logic of the Real World : Concept vs Percept. How did Kant know about dings, if not by sensory observation or rational imagination/representation? Did he know by Direct Revelation or by Inner Vision (clairvoyance)?

The Noumenal vs Phenomenal dichotomy*1 seems to be intended to avoid ambiguity. But I suppose later philosophers have analyzed that black vs white meaning into a variety of nit-picky interpretations. For example, I just noticed the definition of ding an sich below*2. Neither sensory "observation" nor mental "representation", but perhaps some spooky third category of being & knowing. :smile:


*1. What is the difference between noumenal and phenomenal?
The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm
Note --- "Compelled to believe", by what power?

*2. Thing-in-itself
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

So, I wonder if real numbers are either subjective or objective. I mean, they're not to be found anywhere in the world, as such. Nor are they products of the mind, as they are the same for all who can count. That is the sense in which 'intelligible objects' are transcendent - they transcend the subject/object division. And not seeing that is part of the consequences of the decline of realism. The culture doesn't have a way of thinking about transcendentals. From an article on What is Math that I frequently cite in this context: — Wayfarer

Disclaimer : not erudite on Aristotle, Plato, or Kant. But I think they were onto something, even when I can't say exactly what it is.

I suppose the issue you raise here is what prompted Kant to develop the tricky concept of Transcendental Idealism. Plato's Ideal Forms seem to be implicitly supernatural, so how do we natural beings know anything about them? Kant placed such imaginary things off-limits to human experience, in the heavenly realm of ding an sich. So, we cannot "know" them via empirical experience, but only "imagine" them as abstract concepts. From that perspective, Numbers are not "real" in any natural sense, but "ideal" in the sense that we abstract those bare bones (ding an sich) from fleshly experience with multiple objects. Numbers are transcendental place-holders for abstract values. Those ideal tokens are not "products of any one mind", but are universal truths that logical minds have access to.

Therefore, "transcendentals" are "intelligible objects" that are not perceptible to the senses. Hence, their questionable status of "reality". Yet, like verbal viral Memes, such unreal abstractions can be exchanged from one mind to another carrying some non-monetary value. In math, transcendental numbers (like PI) are defined as non-algebraic. Which means they can only be written down with symbols, qualifiers & modifiers to indicate their abstraction, infinitude & unreality*1. As a judge once said about Pornography : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". When we encounter an abstract bare-bones concept like "Beauty", we can't define it in a few words, but we can mentally put imaginary flesh on the metaphorical bones.

Some animals, such as crows*2, seem to be able to extract numbers from their concrete experience. So the ability is natural, even if the dings are somehow super-natural, or transcendental. I suspect that the general universal concepts that philosophers create in their minds are representations of the dings that Aristotle discussed in his Meta-Physics (lit. beyond physical) addendum to his book on Physics. However, as I disclaimed above, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know it's not pornography. Maybe it's above & beyond vulgar Physics*3. :smile:


*1. Transcendental Numbers :
More formally, a transcendental function is a function that cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps from the elementary functions and their inverses.
https://www.mathsisfun.com › numbers › transcendental-...
Note --- A Function is an abstract relationship between two or more objects or quantities. We can't see it, but we can infer it.

*2. Can crows recognize numbers? :
Crows can use and even make tools, reason via analogies, and have been said to rival monkeys in cognitive capacity. They also seem to have a remarkable ability to understand numeric values.
https://www.audubon.org/news/crows-can-count-aloud-much-toddlers-new-study-finds

*3. Aristotle's Transcendent Reality :
In Plato's theory, material objects are changeable and not real in themselves; rather, they correspond to an ideal, eternal, and immutable Form by a common name, and this Form can be perceived only by the intellect. . . . .
The relationship between form and matter is another central problem for Aristotle. He argues that both are substances, but matter is potential, while form is actual. . . .
Thus Aristotle's conception is full of paradoxes.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotlebio/section7/
Note --- Did Ari really (actually) know what he was talking about?

I think it started as pure philosophy, then wandered into superstition and lost its way in organized religion. — Vera Mont

Well put! Compared to blasé moderns --- with artificial senses, allowing us to see our "pale blue dot" from a god-like perspective --- ancient humans may have been more in awe of the immeasurable magnitude of the world, compared to the insignificance of the observer. That wonderful awesomeness may have been the inspiration for "Philosophy" (the search for understanding) and Science (attempts to control), and Religion (efforts to placate the sovereignty of Cosmic Powers).

But those early crude limited views left most of reality as a black box mystery. Hence, the emergence of "Superstition" as a means of coping with things beyond comprehension : natural events imagined as divine or demonic activities. Then, eventually, the primitive attempts at understanding and controlling Nature, became formalized into the religious symbols & rites & prayers we know today as "Religion" : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe ; and our humble place in its superhuman schemes.

Modern Science & Technology have given us almost divine power over Natural forces. And for some, that may be all the "religion" they need. But at the same time, the complexities of Culture present seemingly insuperable obstacles to personal peace & justice. So, the modern role of Religion may be more Ethical than Creedal & Intercessory. Yet, the essence of Religion remains : to serve as a go-between for impotent minuscule Man versus all-powerful magnificent Nature & Culture. :smile:

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

I happen to agree with your conclusion that, in the real world, FreeWill and Determinism co-exist in the paradoxical synergy of statistical Probability. But proving that union of opposites will be like prying apart a paradoxical black box. FWIW, here's my personal take on the philosophical Compatibility Question from a few years ago. :smile:


Paradox of FreeWill :
Thus, the incompatibility of Fate and Freedom has been debated for millennia. . . .
So, it seems that any self-determination or freedom-from-causation we humans possess must be found in that tiny statistical gap between cause & effect.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- The world is predestined by probability (maybe -- maybe not).

Mathematical Probability :
Probability means possibility. It is a branch of mathematics that deals with the occurrence of a random event. The value is expressed from zero to one.
https://byjus.com/maths/probability/
Note --- Einstein didn't like the gambling odds of quantum physics. But the sub-atomic world has since been proven to be founded on a crap shoot. So, the appearance of "pure" determinism is an illusion.

All his works are freely available online. Granted, a fair amount of reading, but the World as Will and Representation Vol 1 is a good start. In respect of the nature of the will, and why everything should be seen as its manifestation, read the paragraphs beginning here. Not easy reading, but then which of the German idealist were? — Wayfarer

Thanks. But it's a bit late in life for me to begin a scholastic study of "German idealists". I have a pretty good foundation in the pioneering Greeks. But I've never read any of Kant or Hegel or Schop --- other than popular quotes, Wiki articles and Wayfarer posts. So, all those famous philosophers are, for me, mainly symbols of specific concepts (Hegelian Dialectic) or general worldviews (Transcendental Idealism) that I may, or may not, want to use in what's left of my own real life. :smile:

In the OP, ↪Shawn found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable. — Gnomon
Yes, I would like to elaborate on why I find it unacceptable. How is one to deny the will to live? Doesn't this imbue a persons life or deny their adaptability to the environment they are in?
Compare and contrast the Darwinian notion of the survival of the fittest with Schopenhauer's notion of the denial of the will to live? — Shawn

I'm not a Schopenhauer scholar, so I'm just shooting in the dark here. His description of WILL --- "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving {random erratic motion?} devoid of knowledge {unintentional ; indeterminate?}, outside of space and time {supernatural?}, and free of all multiplicity {singular ; monistic?} " --- sounds like a natural mechanical energetic force, except for the "outside" and "monistic" modifiers, which sound more like a deity. Yet it's not an individual object or person, but more like an impersonal energy field or Causal Essence.

For example, Aristotle's Prime Mover kicks-off the world in a certain direction, then innate mass/velocity Momentum keeps it going. Ironically, Schop's term "Striving" makes it sound like a goal-directed, self-directing (cybernetic) mechanism/organism. Or perhaps like Plato's intentional First Cause/Logos.

In any case Schop's mechanical "Will" may be only distantly related to the animal "will to live". In Darwinian terms, the latter is merely an instinct to avoid death, in terms of pleasure vs pain motivations. Hence, animals are goal-directed organisms. But Schop could be interpreted to generalize that selective avoidance-of-pain into a cosmic drive-to-survive that propels the animate & inanimate world to evolve from a fetal state into a more mature system. He seems to think humans are merely sentient animals with only short-term emotional goals.

Could Schop really imagine that the evolutionary world system was internally motivated by an ultimate goal of perfection to "strive" (expend Energy) against Entropy? If so, I would think he'd be more sanguine about the world's prospects for a better future. And wouldn't be associated with "toxic" Antinatalism. :cool:


Will to live :
The will to live (German: Wille zum Leben) is a concept developed by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, representing an irrational "blind incessant impulse without knowledge" that drives instinctive behaviors, causing an endless insatiable striving in human existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_live

One question on the link to note 3:where does Socrates say he knows nothing? I think it is a misquotation but would be glad to be shown that I am wrong. — Fooloso4

He probably didn't say that in so many words. But the common quote attributed to the "wise man" is an English paraphrase of the Greek original, intended to indicate that it's wise to not be too cocky about your all-knowingness. Especially on philosophy forums, where you will be called to account. :wink:

Socratic Paradox :
"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

Interesting comment on one sense of divine, but he is talking about divine beings. — Fooloso4

Ari did seem to assume the existence of some kind of supernatural beings, beyond the limits of human senses*1. But to me his "unmoved mover" sounds more like an abstract Nature-God than the Judeo deity, who walks in the garden with his creatures, and communicates his divine Will in no uncertain terms. In any case, I was using the term "to divine" in a colloquial metaphorical sense, not to be taken literally.

More to the point, I'll address your question "Is Aristotle wise?". I suppose the answer depends on whether you agree with Ari on the requirements for wisdom : one being the knowledge of Causes. In the quote below*2 though, he sets a high standard : "knows all things". But also admits to limits : "as far as possible". One cause of the limitation on human knowledge may be the aloofness of the deity, who gave humans the ability to "divine" via intuition & reason, instead of by direct revelation & slavish acquiescence.

Socrates opined that “Wisdom begins in wonder", and Ari's treatise on Phusis reveals a sense of encyclopedic inquisitiveness. Both of those paragons of sagacity also paradoxically expressed doubt about their own wisdom*3. So, Wisdom seems to require childish curiosity constrained by adult skepticism. :smile:


*1. What does Aristotle say about the divine?
Here Aristotle bases his doctrine of God on his cosmology. He conceives of an unmoved mover or first cause, eternal, invisible and unchangeable, who initiates all change in the universe by his attractive power, by arousing the desire to be like him in those heavenly beings which most nearly resemble him.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26477/chapter-abstract/194921046?redirectedFrom=fulltext

*2. “The wise man knows of all things, as far as possible, although he has no knowledge of each of them in detail.” — Aristotle

*3. Why did Socrates say I know nothing?
The meaning of Socrates' reflections in the phrase “all I know is that I know nothing” consisted of two paradoxical things. Firstly, Socrates doubted his own wisdom's superiority over other people's wisdom.
https://www.thecollector.com/all-i-know-is-that-i-know-nothing-socrates/

I decided to start a new discussion rather than continue in the thread on the hard problem. . . .
"Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes." — Fooloso4

I'm not an Aristotle expert, but I do refer to his ideas on Metaphysics whenever discussions about philosophical "hard problems" --- as contrasted with scientific empirical problems --- come up. Perhaps Ari is saying that in order to divine*1 First Principles, penetrating wisdom (insight) is more important than mere superficial observation.

For example, I just began reading Steven Strogatz' 2003 book Sync, How Order Emerges From Chaos. His first example is fireflies (lightning bugs) in Asia that gather in the thousands, and begin to spookily blink in rhythm : all on, all off. The mere observation was that this orchestrated behavior is not normal for "glow-worms". So some mathematical principle was sought to explain this "spontaneous order" without a conductor, and without faster-than-light communication.

That it should be explainable by a general "principle" was implicit, because other cases of order out of chaos have been observed, as in the steady rhythm of the heartbeat, with thousands of cells contracting simultaneously. Actually, a mathematical theory of order-out-of-chaos*2 was constructed by merging the observations & insights of many scientists over several years ; not by instant revelation. In fact, the search continues after many decades of effort*3.

The author doesn't mention Metaphysics, but he does attribute the progress toward a Principle of Order to the collective wisdom of many observers. Presumably, each instance of emergent Order from normal Disorder is caused by some "trigger". And that Causal Principle should be describable in mathematical symbols. But understanding the metaphysical meaning of those abstract numbers & symbols will require some philosophical wisdom. :smile:


*1. To divine : gain knowledge by nonlinear insight or intuition, as if by revelation, instead of by logical linear reasoning

*2. Order out of Chaos : Chaos is random -- no rules -- but Order is regulated by logical/mathematical rules. But what triggers the change? Don't ask me; I just started the book.

*3. Complexity Systems Science : The Santa Fe Institute was established in 1984 to study some of the "hard problems" that emerged from Quantum Physics.

In other words, what we see in a mirror is an optical illusion? — Gnomon
Assuredly not! As this paper by a famous mathematician demonstrates. — unenlightened

So, Lewis Carroll proved that what we see in the "looking glass" is actually a separate dimension where everything is reversed from the normal world. Now it all makes sense. :joke:

It doesn't flip things vertically or horizontally but in the third dimension - front to back. The confusion arises because humans have bilateral symmetry. — unenlightened

In other words, what we see in a mirror is an optical illusion? Does the brain try to make sense of the symmetry flip, by imagining the third dimension inverted? :joke:

PLATO
Forms(X)-->Particulars(Y)
KANT
Noumena(X)-->Phenomena(Y)
SCHOPENHAUR
Will(X)-->Representation(Y)

ALTERNATIVELY
Being(X)-->Becoming(Y)
[Body]-->[Mind]*
[Living]-->[knowing]* — ENOAH

Interesting summary of general philosophical principles, extracted from real-world details. Forms are the essential idea of a thing that is instantiated in actual real things. The Noumenal ding an sich is also the idea of a Phenomenal object, as represented in a mind. The World-Will concept has been represented both as an unstoppable destructive tidal wave, and as an ongoing creative process, suitable for the evolution of thinking & willing & adapting beings. We are all in the same world, but we can choose to look at the dark side, or the brighter side of the same cloud.

Schopenhauer's pointless power of natural Will, may describe a snapshot of "Being" similar to Einstein's frozen Block Universe, going nowhere. But a "Becoming" world would offer more opportunities for growth & learning & evolution. Your notion of Living, as an opportunity for Knowing, is also more optimistic about the human condition. Instead of helplessly chained to the whipping wall, we are able to devise (represent) ways to escape, in reality (plan) or ideality (hope). :cool:

Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
For most humans though, Willpower is presumed to be both self-control and control over the environment. Hence, neither “aimless” nor “devoid of knowledge”.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

In other words, it's not suffering all the way down - suffering has a cause and an end. I wouldn't look to Nietzsche for insight on that, however. — Wayfarer

Yes. I don't project a sunny Pollyanna view onto our imperfect world. But I also can't subscribe to Schop's gloomy-give-up outlook. I wouldn't want to model my personal worldview on his example of analytical intellectual critical methodology*1. His scientific approach to criticism is reductive, but I look to philosophy for a more holistic & creative big picture, including both the bad and the good stuff. Since I am a sentient creature, I can experience pain & suffering for myself. I don't need Schop's help to touch it where it hurts, to feel the exquisite agony of physical & psychological trauma. But I could benefit from a longer-broader view that envisions some "end" of suffering, preferably in the here & now world.

I suspect that Schop, as a young man, was an Idealist, taught to expect a more perfect world. But, as cynical comic-commentator George Carlin noted, a cynic is a disappointed idealist. When I was young, I too was indoctrinated with an idealistic worldview, in which a loving father in heaven was there to sooth my suffering. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that divine succor was an ideal concept, not to be found in this real life, but in some remote angel-harp-cloud-world. Instead, I realized that practical succoring is found in your fellow sufferers, and in your own inner fortitude. So, instead of descending into angry Atheism, I became a Stoic Agnostic, and looked to human-authored philosophy, rather than cleric-authorized religion, to inform my pragmatic self-dependent positive forward-looking worldview.

If I found the world to be completely irrational & absurd, then my rational self-help plan of action would be insane. In the OP, found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable. But that sad state of mind would be sane, if the "Will" running the world had no inherent Logic or direction. And, if the world is a creation of my own mind, its absurdity would be a reflection of my own state of mind. Schop, like other European intellectuals of his era, was impressed by the "Eastern" holistic, non-dogmatic philosophies that contrasted with his own dualistic, legalistic religious heritage. Yet, I suspect that he failed to find any reason for living, other than fear of death, in a godless directionless life.

But, enough of this sober serious "Big School" stuff. As my teasing about Debbie Downer should indicate, I don't take Schop's worldview so seriously. It's not an ideal model for me to emulate. I prefer to filter the bad stuff through a sense of humor. That said, I can see that his notion of a "mind created world" would resonate with your own. But don't take it too literally. The imperfect real world will still be following its own internal logic (natural laws) into the uncertain future, long after your personal Mind has graduated to Nirvana. :cool:

PS___ My answer to the OP question is that Schop may be right about the imperfections of the not-yet-complete world process, and about our human ability to create a world-model of personally experienced & selected facts, but wrong about the hopelessness of the whole enterprise, which is not about little ole me.



*1. Why does negativity seem more intelligent than positively?
Negativity deals with the analytical while positivity is more creative.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-negativity-seem-more-intelligent-than-positively

I have never been able to get on board with his Debbie Downer*1 "wanh, wanh, wah" Pessimism and Roseanne Rosannadana "it's always something" — Gnomon
Grow up mate. Schopenhauer is for Big School, not kindy. — Wayfarer

OK. I'll leave the grown-up philosophy to those who are able to gnaw on tough gristly meat. But his fatalistic worldview (amor fati) is not for me. Although Siddhartha was also moved by the suffering of his huddled masses of countrymen --- several thousand years before Schopenhauer's insight --- at least he proposed a self-help attitude that might make the toughness more palatable. Other than a few quotes & wiki articles, I know little about scowling Schop, and I'm content to leave it that way.

I'm currently reading a historical novel, Hawaii, by James Michener. He doesn't pull any punches, as he describes innumerable instances of "man's inhumanity to man" over many centuries. In a scene on a Leper's Island --- where those infected, through no fault of their own, were banished to suffer & die, out of sight & touch of the unaffected fat & happy Hawaiians --- an uninfected Chinese woman, who volunteered to go to the miserable colony with her leprous husband, years later asked about a missionary who had died of the disfiguring disease, "did he suffer?". The reply was, "here everybody suffers". To me, that sounds like Schop's world. But I prefer the world of the stubborn stoic woman, who was the heroine of this episode. She didn't wallow in misery & self-pity, but -- with low expectations --she got to work and made a good life out of the bad hand she was dealt. I suspect that Schop's idealistic expectations of life were too high, out of his reach.

Optimism is not about looking the other way, but focusing on what's within arm's reach. "Pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power." — William James. :smile:

Schopenhauer ended up saying that the meaning of life is to deny it . . . .
When Schopenhauer explicitly asks the question (in On Human Nature), it is this sense of it he appears to have in mind. His answer is depressing. The point or purpose of life is to suffer. We are being punished for the crime of being born, punished for who we are, namely, the nasty thoroughly egoistic will. https://iep.utm.edu/mean-ear/


If Schop's world is inherently irrational, how can we find enobling meaning in suffering?

This is extremely uncharitable... This is dismissive, trivializing, mocking, etc. all with admittedly not reading much of his ideas. This is a transparent smear campaign! — schopenhauer1

I wasn't talking about , but about a dismal worldview that is not amenable to my own. From comments by other philosophers, I concluded long ago that "his ideas" were not conducive to rational philosophy*1*2*3. As depressed Hamlet said, "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison". He wishes that his “thinking” would allow him to live out his life in ignorance, insentient of the tragedies of his polarized political world, in which fatherly kings can be slain, by a treacherous mother. The Will of the world may seem "aimless", in that it is not aimed at yours truly. But, the Will of a human is aim-able by intention.

Sure, sh*t happens, but I don't have to sit sourly in the stinky sh*thouse, breathing its stench, after the bad stuff has been "eradicated" from my person. On a more positive note, I found the Buddha-like quote below, about not dwelling on depressive thoughts. A more balanced worldview does not have to be "deluded". The Carlin quote above, echoes the Buddha, in that desire for an unattainable perfect world can be the cause of psychological suffering. Maybe Schop should heed his own advice. Compared to images of the serene Buddha, Schop's portraits as an old man look pretty grim.

If Schop's absurd, perverse, strife-filled world is "Idealism", I prefer the imperfect Real one, where I can sit quietly in my little relatively strife-free zone of willful ignorance, and read a book, without thinking tragic thoughts. I apologize if I indirectly offended you in my post to Wayfarer. It was not a critique of Schop's corpus of work, but of his gloomy opinion of cosmic Will, especially as it manifests in human behavior. :smile:



*1. Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first 19th century philosophers to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. Inspired by Plato and Kant, both of whom regarded the world as being more amenable to reason,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

*2. In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.
___ Arthur Schopenhauer

*3. As a man thinketh, so is his worldview
“Do not eat the bread of a miser,
Nor desire his delicacies;
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he."
___ Proverbs 23:7

I still think the opening few sentences of WWR are among the immortal utterances of philosophy:
“The world is my idea”. — Wayfarer

I can see why Kastrup might endorse Schopenhauer's analytical Idealism, and why you could appreciate his notion of a Mind Created World. But I have never been able to get on board with his Debbie Downer*1 "wanh, wanh, wah" Pessimism and Roseanne Rosannadana "it's always something" Cynicism. Hence, I've never attempted to actually read any of his "succinct" prose. All I know of his work is limited to his aphorisms. One of which inspired my latest contrarian blog entry*2.

Was Schopenhauer right : that the world is a sh*thole, and human sh*t is the worst kind? So, abandon all hope, ye who enter this hell on Earth? Or was the Buddha right : that the world is a sh*thole, but willful humans can look up at the holy seat and follow the light to get out of nastiness, and into Nirvana? It may be true that sentience is the ability to suffer, but it's also the ability to know and to enjoy.

Is it true that optimistic Idealism is self-refuting? Leibniz said this sh*thole is the best possible world --- considering the compromised circumstance : that God & Satan are competing to run this defiled paradise. But his hopeful Idealism was ridiculed by Voltaire's cynical sarcasm*3. If this imperfect world is "my idea" why is it far less than ideal?

In the OP, found Schopenhauer's "denial of the will to live" --- what 180 labeled Antinatalism*4 ---off-putting. Since he was influenced by Buddhism, why didn't Schop find inner peace? Why didn't he follow the eightfold path to Nirvana? Schop's ironic Idealism seems to imply that he & we project our dismal depression onto our mind-made worldview. That's contrary to a traditional notion of "Ideal" as perfect and all good. Like Voltaire, he derided Leibniz's Theodicy , that this is the best possible world. But, unlike the Stoics, he didn't advise that we create the best possible life from an imperfect world.

Schopenhauer's assessment of the human condition seemed to be similar to that of the Buddha : "the cause of suffering is Desire" ; and of Stoicism : "Stoicism teaches that we should discern our desires carefully"*5. But both of those philosophies offered a way to a more positive outlook. Yet Schop took a darker branch of the Buddha's path of enlightenment*6. One commentator observed : "If he was indeed depressed, it was depression as an intellectual disposition, not the usual sense of the word "depressed" {see Carlin quote below}. Consequently, I find his harsh intellectual analytical Realistic Idealism to be depressing --- intellectually of course, not emotionally. :worry:


*1. Debbie & Roseanna are Saturday Night Live characters

*2. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
In his 1818 book, The World as Will and Representation, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer “identifies the thing-in-itself — the inner essence of everything — as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge”. Hence the material world, as represented in a conscious mind, is more like a challenging ever-changing dynamic system than an inert material object. For most humans though, Willpower is presumed to be both self-control and control over the environment. Hence, neither “aimless” nor “devoid of knowledge”. Will is intentional in the sense that an idea ─ a desire, need, goal ─ in the metaphysical mind is directed out into the physical world, as-if the immaterial mind had some ability to affect material objects. I’m not talking about mind-over-matter magic, but about human technology, the application of knowledge (information) for practical physical purposes : i.e. Science.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

*3. Voltaire is a cynic (someone who believes people are selfish) and a misanthrope (someone who dislikes humanity)
https://webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/voltaire_and_candide.htm

*4. Side note : the Wiki entry on Antinatalism has a picture of Schopenhauer.

*5. Desire is want --- lack of something needed --- but it's also the motivation (Will) to acquire something to fill that need.

*6. The dark philosophy :
"Schopenhauer developed a distrust of people in general, a depressed view of the world, an inability to maintain close relationships with anyone ..."
https://eternalisedofficial.com/2022/03/25/philosophy-of-

Oh no, that's not it. I'm just saying that it cannot do what it doesn't do. This is the law of non-contradiction: it states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
Hence it cannot simply be omniscient when it interacts with the universe. The only way the demon can be omniscient about an universe is when it's not part of it. And when it's not part of it, it cannot give any information to anybody (interact with it, in general). — ssu

I'm not sure what the "contradictory propositions" are in this case. Are you talking about A> knowing-Omniscience vs B> acting-Immanence : design & creation of A> perfect self-adjusting evolutionary space-time system vs B> imperfect mechanism requiring occasional adjustments (interactions ; interventions) to physical settings? "A" would leave the creator-demon outside the creation, but "B" would require the demon to stick-around to tweak the dials of Nature to keep it on track.

As I understand Laplace's metaphor of godless purposeless Determinism, it postulates setting Initial Conditions, but not subsequent demonic-intellect "interventions", and would play-out via random physical interactions ; not by divine dial-tweaking. That would be equivalent to the Big Bang Theory, in which the Singularity (the Demon) was a physical state similar to a Black Hole. There was no prior intention or later intervention. That super-dense dot of matter/energy simply exploded. And the happenstance state of the Singularity set the initial conditions for the Bang, which physically determined all future evolutions of matter/energy, which are destined to die in a Big Sigh.

The philosophical problem with the burgeoning*1 Singularity postulation is : C> how did it get into that particular state, and D> what caused the imploded matter to explode? One proposed answer to C & D is that a previous incarnation of a hypothetical Multiverse ended with all matter compacted into a Black Hole, which "bounced" back into a reverse of the implosion motion : an explosion*2.

The Singularity-Demon metaphor could be explained as the intake of knowledge (information) from a previous (precedental) world experiment, which made it effectively omniscient about the new (subsequent) venture in world-making. If the cause & effect are imagined as natural & accidental, then no Creative Intention was necessary to Cause the eruption of an embryonic Cosmos, providentially furnished with DNA/information from a parent world.

Of course, the Mutiverse-Big-Bounce theory is just as unverifiable as a Demonic or Genesis creation story. So, we are arguing about the credibility of a scientific Myth. What's "true" in the metaphor, is not necessarily true in the real world. So, we're back to the OP question of the role of Information and Randomness in our Organic and Entropic world. :nerd:


*1. Burgeoning : beginning to grow or increase rapidly; flourishing.

*2. The Big Bounce hypothesis is a cosmological model for the origin of the known universe. It was originally suggested as a phase of the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang, where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.[1][2][3][4] It receded from serious consideration in the early 1980s after inflation theory emerged as a solution to the horizon problem, which had arisen from advances in observations revealing the large-scale structure of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Everything is truly predetermined. The future is what it will be. There is simply no room for choice, chance or randomness.
The negative self-reference refutes this possibility. — ssu

Some self-reference is necessary to have a self-concept. So I guess you're saying that Laplace's demon is omniscient until it begins to doubt its own abilities : to have a negative bias against itself. However, there may be another interpretation of that negative-self-reflection notion*1.

The Centipede story*2 is an illustration of the psychological effect of too much self-concern, or introspection. Normally, the centipede is able to walk by instinct, without consciously thinking about how to coordinate so many legs. But when her focus is directed from a single goal to the many steps in between, a subconscious process (no need for choice) became a conscious concern (necessity for choosing). I suppose you could say that the complex walking procedure was "predetermined" by instinctive genetics, until it became a rational mechanical design problem.

What would cause the demon's intellect to change her cosmic worldview from A> frozen totally-non-random block-time eternal-isness, to B> dynamic space-time partly-randomized evolution-over-eons? If predestination is switched to free-will, then every step becomes a problem to be solved. Hence, the demon might get distracted from the simple "why?" of the world, to questions of "when & where & how", then confused by so many contradictory options, might fall in the ditch of choice-paralysis*3. :smile:

*1. Negative Self-Reference : "question our assumptions"
https://thenegativepsychologist.com/trap-self-reference/

*2. The Centipede's Dilemma :
The centipede effect occurs when a normally automatic or unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness of it or reflection on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Centipede%27s_Dilemma
A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.


*3. the paradox of choice suggests that having too many choices actually limits our freedom.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/economics/the-paradox-of-choice

My take is - and this is another digression, but what the heck - there is no electron until it is measured. — Wayfarer

OFF TOPIC AGAIN. You might want to move these devolutionary digressions to a new or old thread : Realism vs Idealism or Phenomenal vs Noumenal, or Physical vs Metaphysical.

Bohr's mysterious comment seems to be implying that the physical phenomenal (real) world is eternally meta-physical noumenal (ideal) until a sentient observer releases it from its non-existent imprisonment in a genie bottle. But Wheeler made a similar -- strange but not quite so spooky -- suggestion : that there is a single-universal-electron, lurking out in the not-yet-real Future, which when probed by an intrusive inquiring mind "collapses" a part of the whole anonymous-set-of-possibilities into the knowable-nameable-Now. If so, we can add Potential vs Actual to the list of digressive dilemmas. :worry:

One electron or no electron :
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

When those elementary particles are entangled, acting holistically, are they real or ideal? These are philosophical questions about physical & meta-physical states of being. — Gnomon

In my own attempts to make sense of quantum queerness, I have postulated that an "entangled" particle is unknowable only because it is immersed in a holistic system of particles, like a drop of H2O in the ocean. If so, how does the observer pry-apart the entangled mass of particles in order to isolate a single part from the whole? Does the observer imagine the revealed particle by analyzing part-from-whole, or conjure from scratch, ex nihilo? Does the inquiring mind "create" a real world from scratch, or an ideal world-model from concepts? Is this physics or metaphysics?

Presumably, this question is only a problem for scientists poking around in the invisible foundations of Reality. The rest of us look at a table and see only a functional item of furniture, not a swarm of buzzing atoms. That's merely a matter of scale, not of matter vs mind, right?. We're not creating the Real (physical) world out of Ideal (metaphysical) whole-cloth, are we? There is some pre-existing something out-there for us to see, isn't there? :wink:

From Scratch : American idiom
made from raw materials, or from nothing

Made out of Whole Cloth : American Idiom
completely fictitious or false; made up.

Metaphysical : abstract abstruse esoteric mystical philosophical spiritual supernatural theoretical

I’m curious about your reaction to his take on the ’mind-dependence’ of the world.
<< Dreyfus and Spinosa do much the same-‘consequently they are led to suppose that there is no possibility of access to things `in themselves’ from within the framework of the everyday and that the defence of scientific realism must therefore depend on severing the scientific from our ordinary, everyday access to things >>. — Joshs

OFF-TOPIC : not specifically about evolution vs alternative theories of how we got to here

Since my knowledge of the long-running Realism vs Idealism debate is minimal, I would also be interested in 's response to the Malpas quote. But, until he replies to your post, I'll muse a bit about my own perplexity toward Kant's Phenomenal vs Noumenal world.

Obviously, Phenomena are what "ordinary" humans sense in the world around them. Ostensibly, that's also what empirical science studies. With the possible exception of quantum scale physics, which is beyond the scope of unaided senses, and requires subjective interpretation of uncertain observations. As an "ordinary" observer, I have never sensed any sub-atomic Phenomena. So, for me, "neutrons" are just as noumenal as nature-spirits. In professional practice, extra-sensory Noumena (dings ; ideas ; symbols ; representations ; mental models) are typically relegated for study by "extraordinary" philosophers and psychologists.

The beginning of that division of labor seems to fade in the mists of ancient time. Some of the early noumenalists were thinkers like Plato and Lao Tse. But Aristotle, in his Physics, seemed to implicitly draw a line between our objective sensory observations of the physical world, and our subjective rational analysis of what we see. The former is what we now know as Physics, and the latter became known as Meta-Physics. Some classify metaphysics are merely "religious dogma". But I think Aristotle viewed it as philosophical extrapolations from phenomenal experience : e.g. First Principles.

For ordinary people like me, the existence of the supra-atomic world is unquestionable, until we get down to the sub-atomic realm, which requires imagination to perceive. So, are such things as entangled Electrons Real or Ideal? Electrons & Photons are supposed to be fundamental to physics, but do they qualify as ding an sich? Although we can sense the heat & light of their passing, if we can't see & touch them, are they really real? If so, in what sense do we have "access" to them? When those elementary particles are entangled, acting holistically, are they real or ideal? These are philosophical questions about physical & metaphysical reality. :smile:


Thing-in-itself :
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
Note --- Are dings physical objects even when nobody is looking at them?

Mind-Dependence :
Idealism is the thesis that the world is mind-dependent. In particular, the things we call material objects are dependent on the mind for their existence: to be is to be perceived. Realism is the thesis that the world is mind-independent, so that material objects can exist whether perceived or not.
https://www.colinmcginn.net/mind-dependence/
Note --- Does this mean that ideal entangled electrons wait patiently for a physicist to poke his nose into their business before they reveal themselves as real independent particles?