They might say "matter has potential so it is below what is non-material because that is completely actual". Such a line of argument is ungrounded but it was used by Aristotle. I don't see what philosophy can say about matter that physics can't — Gregory

Oh, I see what you are getting at. It's the old Matter/Mind conundrum. And I don't know what I can add to the debates over thousands of years on the topic. But, my point in the previous post was that, if you are talking about Physics, you are not discussing Philosophy. Philosophy is not concerned with what is Actual, Local, or Specific. Instead, it focuses on Abstractions, Universals, & Generalities. And those "non-material" notions are not physical objects to be dissected. So, applying the rules of Physics, Chemistry, or Biology will get you nowhere on "un-grounded", but Foundational, Meta-Physical questions. Philosophy is not in competition with Physics on what to say about matter. But Mind is another "matter". :smile:

Physics and Philosophy :
Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/physics-and-philosophy

Universals :
In general, questions surrounding universals touch upon some of the oldest, deepest, and most abstract of philosophical issues. . . .
Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed.
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/

PS__Theoretical Physicists (such as Einstein) are more philosopher than physicist, because they are more concerned with general principles (Relativity), than with specific properties.

Physics and Philosophy :
Philosophy, the physicist Carlo Rovelli has observed, brings to science “conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations”.
Or, as Einstein put it, philosophical thinking makes for the “distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/einstein-got-it-philosophy-and-science-do-go-hand-in-hand

PPS__Physicists study "Matter", while Philosophers study "Form".
"Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form".

A seemingly secondary but eventually essential theme of Fardter’s critique of cultural objectivism is the paradigmatic hypermeaninglessness of any predialectical 'society.' If our rehabilitated and purified neosemiotic (anti-)theory holds, we have to choose finally between either a conceptualist desituationism or a no less comfortable transdescriptive Conversation. Further, if one can transcend such a surreptitious surrealism synthetically or asymptotically, one is nevertheless nagged by yet another dismaying decision: either accept the aforementioned preconceptual deappropriation or conclude that art is used to marginalize the proletariat. — ajar

Whoa! Hold on there partner. Can you break-down some of those polysyllabic words, so a non-specialist can follow the logic? I have no idea what all that "hypermeaninglessness" means. :joke:

PS__It sounds like a political rant or screed, not a philosophical analysis of Consciousness. :cool:

To my mind material we sense with our five external senses is prior to any sense in which it can change. Brains, hands, beds are all real tangible things. QM has brought the idea of potential existence back to the forefront but a thing has to be actual in order to be able to change. The potentiality comes from the actuality, not the other way around. — Gregory

Apparently, you are thinking of "Potential" in the sense of stored energy, instead of Aristotle's Potential as the origin & source of Actual things. If this was a physics forum, that special Palpable usage might be accepted. But, on a philosophy forum, I'd think a more general meaning would be preferred. (Except by 180 proof, who prefers Physics to Philosophy. :cool: )

An example of a material potential is a chemical bomb, which has the Potential to destroy buildings & people. Or an electric battery which has stored energy in chemical form, possessing the Potential to produce a voltage in a complete circuit. That is a common definition of "Potential". But it must be qualified by noting that a 1.5V AA battery in your hand, touching both ends, has no Actual voltage, so you don't get shocked. The voltage is Contingent upon a connection between + & - poles.

Of course, we sometimes refer to stored (inert) energy metaphorically, as-if it was actual flowing causation. But the relevant distinction that Aristotle made is : Potential is not Actual; it does not yet exist; it's Ability Without Achievement . Philosophers, who don't make that differentiation, tend to get their arguments all tangled-up in existential side-tracks. Potential is Possibility, so what are the odds of becoming Reality? And Possibility implies Contingency. So, the answer to the OP question is "yes" : matter does have Potential/Contingency. But that's not a philosophical question.

Humans can call stored energy "Potential" (for causation), only because we are able to imagine a future state, after that inert energy (of chemical form) is converted into causal kinetic energy (of relative position & polarity). That's also why you can say that "potentiality comes from actuality". Because we give a spurious name to that inert energy to signify it's future state, not its current (pun intended) state. :joke:


Voltage and Potential in a battery :
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/661725/voltage-and-potential-in-a-battery

Philosophical Potential :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

Physical Potential :
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
2. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
___Oxford

Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

I just browsed the second link. It seems to completely miss the logical-semantic issue (as perhaps you do), and it's hard to gauge a priori whether it's published by cranks.
If you've actually read it, perhaps you'll be willing to summarize the argument for conclusion #3 below, namely the qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages. — ajar

I don't know anything about the Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience organization. But, FWIW, the author of the article, Roger Orpwood, is a researcher at the Centre for Pain Research, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK. The "frontiers" label might indicate a focus on pushing the envelope of Neuroscience knowledge. Whether that qualifies as "crank", I don't have enough information to say.

The Information & Qualia article, in general, agrees with my own understanding of how information processing works in the brain/mind. Apparently, you have a problem with their assertion that : "The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages". But it makes sense to me, in the light of cutting-edge Neuroscience and Information Theory. So, as requested, here's my summary of the argument :

1. Qualia are abstract concepts in the mind, that result from sensory stimulation. The typical example is to point out that there is no Redness in red light. Instead, it's an interpretation in the mind.

2. Information is an abstract pattern that carries Potential Meaning. For example, Morse Code is merely a series of dots & dashes (symbols) that can be interpreted by prepared minds as meaningful Information.

3. Messages are the semantic meanings associated with abstract symbolic patterns, or conventional squiggles such as "2" or "X".

4. Logic is a mathematical relationship (structural pattern) between items in a series or array. If the logic "adds up", the result is value or meaning.

5. Structure is an abstract logical pattern that the mind perceives as the essence of an object or arrangement of objects.

6. Information is processed, organized and structured data.

7. Data is things known or assumed as facts, values, or meanings, as the basis of reasoning or calculation.

So, the article seems to be saying that "the Qualia we are aware of in the Mind are interpreted from abstract logical patterns of incoming data as meaningful information". The brain is just a machine for processing raw data into meaningful messages to the conscious Self. For example, light in the range of 620 to 750nm, has no inherent color. So, it must first be converted into a chemical form, which is then transformed into electro-magnetic forms, and ultimately processed into the Meaning (qualia) we call "Red". The Mind, both conscious and sub-conscious, is the interpreter of meaning; of significance to Self. Does that sound cranky to you? :smile:

↪Gnomon
well, yes, he's certainly well-regarded amongst the digital cognoscenti, but not so much amongst the population at large. But surely amongst his peers Norbert Wiener must be on about equal footing, I would have thought. — Wayfarer

I agree that Wiener's notion of Cybernetics was a genius move. He's right up there with Bertalanffy, and his Systems Theory, for nudging the reductive focus of Science to include emergent Holistic functions, derived from feedback loops. Ironically, Holism still seems to be a four-letter word to some posters on this forum. :meh:

Just noticed this via an article in Quanta magazine - Claude Shannon, the Prophet of Information. Haven't watched it yet but thought it might be of interest to others. — Wayfarer

The article refers to him as "the over-looked genius". Perhaps, the typical texting-while-driving cell-phone abuser "over-looks" the Prophet of the Information Age. But us acolytes of The Informer are still discovering more evidence of his genius after a century of world-changing effects. :smile:

But I don't see were potentiality comes in. It's like saying change is an object — Gregory

Potential is not objective. It's a subjective idea (qualia) used to describe why objective things change : "because X caused potential to become actual". Anything that lacks the potential for change (a cause) would be eternally the same. But in the real world, everything is subject to change, even metaphysical Minds. For example, an electrical circuit is described as possessing the quality of Potential, as-if it is a complete loop. If the circuit is broken though, the Potential is only theoretical (pending the closing of a switch). We say a battery has Voltage (potential energy) even when it's not part of a circuit. But we're only speaking hypothetically. We say that an inert concrete block has potential energy if it is six feet off the ground. But only when it is allowed to fall (the cause), does that potential (static, stored energy) convert into actual (changing, kinetic) energy --- which converts to metaphysical Pain in your toe.

So your problem with treating Potential as a real thing is due to the flexibility of language, which allows us to use Metaphors (or future tense) as-if they are the thing (or state) implied. And philosophers are some of the worst offenders for getting Potential & Actual confused. On this forum we waste a lot of time trying to untangle our metaphors. :worry:

PS__"It's like" (like "as-if") is potentially confusing metaphorical language. That's why philosophers must eventually define what they are really (actually) trying to say. :joke:

PPS__Metaphorical language is also used to describe Mystical concepts, that are invisible to our physical senses. Some people use the term "Soul" (Ghost) as-if it refers to an immaterial essence, that is only loosely connected to a physical body. We can easily imagine such unreal things, by comparing them to familiar material objects. And we can talk about them as-if they are Actual things. Yet, like all subjective notions, we accept or reject such ideas, not on material evidence, but on faith in the story-teller. When physicists tell us about spooky metaphorical energy "Fields", we must use our imagination to see them. They are only Potential until actualized into measurable energy. Some of us find "fields" more believable than "ghosts". :cool:

It seems to me metaphysical states of matter don't exist. The physical properties of actuality of extension in substantial form is what things are. Change is not a thing. It's what we think of as happening between states of pure actuality. — Gregory

True. "To exist" literally refers to objective things . . . except when we use the term metaphorically in reference to subjective concepts --- such as the notion of Change. We can't see or touch the difference between a Now State and a Future State. But by reasoning, we can infer that the physical state of a thing has mutated over a time interval. Change is not a static thing, but a dynamic process of evolution & transformation. Yet, "to change" is a verb, while "Change" is a noun; treated as-if it's a static thing : a blurry snap-shot of motion.

Since subjective ideas (known by conception) are difficult to communicate from mind to mind, we typically compare them to objective things (known by perception). Which is why philosophers use a lot of metaphorical language, and scientists prefer to use more concrete terminology. Ironically, Quantum Physics is so Alice-in-wonderland-weird, that even sober scientists tend to sound like mystics or poets (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli). Anything meta-physical has no existence in a real physical sense. But everything Menta-Physical (mental concepts) does exist in an ideal metaphysical sense. That's why physicists study Physics (matter ; energy), and philosophers study Meta-Physics (mind ; ideas). :cool:


What type of word is 'change'? :
Change can be a noun or a verb
https://wordtype.org/of/change

Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred to as quantum quackery, is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. ___Wikipedia

I don't think potentiality is a property of things . . . . All this means is that the world of matter is the center of reality and others ways of thinking at the world are mystical. — Gregory

Aristotle contrasted Potential with Actual. Both terms refer to metaphysical states, not to physical properties. Potential refers to a possible future state that has not yet been actualized in the Now. For example, "Ice" is a potential state of "Water", which does have slightly different physical properties. However, Potential can also refer to something that is not-yet-existent -- hence, no properties -- but is not impossible. So the phase change from Potential to Actual is indeed contingent on some Causal or Creative Agency (e.g. Energy or Creator). In that sense, Aristotle would say that everything in the world is contingent on a "First Cause" (or Creative Act) with the Potential for actualizing a world from scratch.

However, to conclude from the Contingency of Reality that constantly changing "matter is the center of reality" is a personal perspective, not a logical conclusion. For example, Heraclitus claimed that "Life" is the central reality. And yet, the essence of Life is Change (impermanence ; contingency). And for many of us, "Awareness-Consciousness-Mind" is the center of their reality. From that post-Copernican relativity, Self is the center around which all contingent things revolve. Which raises the question : is "Self" material or mystical, or merely metaphysical (mental)? So, what is the Lodestar around which every evolving thing revolves? :cool:

PS___ the matter of which Earth is composed may be the physical center of the Moon's orbit, but what is the meta-physical (philosophical ; mystical?) center of your personal world?

PPS___I assume you were thinking of "Matter" as the Touchstone (standard reference) of Physics, as opposed to "Spirit" as the heart of Meta-Physics (Philosophy ; Mysticism??). But, I went off in a different direction. Sorry! :yikes:

What is the essence of reality according to Heraclitus? :
His central claim is summed up in the phrase Panta Rhei ("life is flux") recognizing the essential, underlying essence of life as change. Nothing in life is permanent, nor can it be, because the very nature of existence is change. Change is not just a part of life in Heraclitus' view, it is life itself.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Heraclitus_of_Ephesos/

Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. — Gnomon
Hi. Picking on qualia is a hobbyhorse for me lately, so please pardon a question. How would one establish that qualia are caused by something? — ajar

First, I need to clarify that the quoted phrase is my interpretation of an interpretation that I don't agree with : that Qualia have no causal powers. As ideas (beliefs) in the mind, Qualia do have a causal role in human behavior.

Regarding the "how" of "establishing that qualia are caused by something", you can refer to neuroscience articles such as those linked below. :smile:

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... in terms of the causal role it plays in our mental life:
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Information and the Origin of Qualia :
The cause of sensory qualia is just the same as all the other experiences, it just happens to be focussed on sensory perception.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00022/full

Dunno. This directs attention away from the matter itself. And, so I think, that's exactly the stuff conscious resides in. — Raymond

Yes. That was the point of my post. Mind & Consciousness are not material things, but immaterial mathematical functions. A "function" is a relationship (ratio ; pattern), not a physical object. We typically refer to those Menta-Physical concepts (ideas ; symbols) with nouns, as-if they are tangible things. But the Mind is an Information Processor (not the machine, but the logical procedure) which receives raw sensory information Input and changes it into symbolic Meaning (significance to Self) as the Output.

Since Shannon reified Information (abstract ideas) as-if they are chunks (bits & bytes) of matter, many people imagine "Information" as some kind of ectoplasmic "stuff", that is stored in the brain. But it's "stuff" only in a metaphorical sense. Yet, those mental images are actually abstractions of mathematical logic, in the form of relationships between sensory inputs and mental outputs. Information is stored in the Brain in the form of abstract patterns of relationships. Mind pictures are like the illusory images we see on a movie screen. Metaphors are Meta-Physical. Much of our philosophical disputes are not about the facts, but the significance of metaphors. :nerd:


What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
Note -- a function is an abstract relationship, like a mathematical ratio

Process :
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Note -- actions are not physical objects, but changes in the objects

Symbolic :
a representation of a thing, not the thing-in-itself

Reify :
make (something abstract) seem more concrete or real.
Note -- imagining a bit or byte of Information as-if it is a material object makes it seem more realistic.

Abstraction :
The act of obtaining or removing something from a source : the act of abstracting something, a general idea or quality, rather than an actual person, object, or ...
Note -- The mental processing of incoming sensations filters-out the material "stuff", leaving only the "general idea" of the specific thing represented. The result is a Qualia, not a Quanta. The Idea of a thing is its abstract logical structure, along with attributed Properties or Qualities.

PS___The Beatles' Days in the life says : "he blew his mind out in a car". In this poetic sense, "mind" is a metaphor for "brain". Yet, it wasn't actually "mind" splattered on the roof of the car. People often to equate the function with the material. But they are as different as "heat" and "heater". Heat is a physical process, but it has no material substance. In that comparison, Mind is like Energy : invisible & intangible but sensible & knowable. We "sense" the Mind with our sixth sense of Rational Inference.

Information is a material notion. It describes the spatial relationships between particles. — Raymond

Yes, but Information is also an immaterial function. In my thesis, Information is the fundamental "substance" (Aristotle : essence) of the world. So, Matter, Energy, & Mind are various forms of shape-shifting Information. That's why I noted that "Mind emerges not just from a Material Brain, but ultimately from the Immaterial Information". :smile:

Information : Shannon vs Deacon :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book (Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged From Matter) about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
BothAnd Blog 4, post 80.

Information -- What is It? :
But perhaps the most fundamental enigma is the ultimate “nature” of Information itself. The original usage of the term was primarily Functional, as the content of memory & meaning. Then Shannon turned his attention to the Physical aspects of data transmission. Now, Deacon has returned to the most puzzling aspect of mental function : Intentions & Actions. For example : a> how one person’s mind can convey meaning & intentions to another mind; b> how a subjective intention (Will) can result in physical changes to the objective world. How can invisible intangible immaterial (absent) ideas cause physical things to move & transform. Occultists have imagined Mind as a kind of mystical energy or life-force (Chi; psychokinesis) that can be directed outward into the world, like a laser beam, to affect people and objects. But Deacon is not interested in such fictional fantasies. Instead, he tries to walk a fine line between pragmatics & magic, or physics & metaphysics.
BothAnd Blog 4, post 80.

"Consciousness" is phenomenal awareness of mind. Mind(ing) tracks and resolves 'discontinuities' between memories & expections or expections & predictions in order to adaptively coordinate behavior with(in) social / natural environment(s). — 180 Proof

I was not familiar with the term "phenomenal consciousness", so I Googled it. After a brief review, I can see that the theory is more complex & technical than a cursory overlook could suffice for understanding. But the key concept seems to be based on Holistic Emergence. So, on the face of it, their hypothesis sounds compatible with my own notion of Consciousness as an Emergent phenomenon of Information processing in the Brain.

The authors of the article linked below, even quote one of my favorite physicists, Paul Davies, about the "emergentist hypothesis". I don't know if they also refer to one of Davies' cutting-edge concepts in Physics : that "shape-shifting" Information (or EnFormAction as I call it) is the essence of both Energy & Matter, as they interact to form emergent Whole Systems, with novel properties & functions, from a selection of otherwise independent Parts. From that perspective, the Conscious Mind emerges not just from a Material Brain, but ultimately from the Immaterial Information that is knitted-together into novel patterns of inter-relationships, which humans interpret as Meaning. :smile:

Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence :
In this paper, we discuss the critical role emergence plays in creating phenomenal consciousness and how this role helps explain what appears to be a scientific explanatory gap between the subjective experience and the brain, but which is actually not a scientific gap at all.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01041/full
Note -- Consciousness is a philosophical gap in primacy & category : Which comes first "physical form" or "metaphysical design"? Which is more important "awareness" or "physical substance"? Which is more crucial "knowing" or "sensing"?

Davies, P. (2006). “Preface,” in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, eds P. Clayton and P. Davies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), ix–xiv.

Life, the Universe, and Everything :
"I think we begin to see that if information can have causal leverage over matter, . . ."
https://physicsworld.com/a/life-the-universe-and-everything-an-interview-with-paul-davies/

Holistic Emergence of Mind :
For example, at levels of low complexity, exchanges of information are merely what physicists call “energy”, which is “doing” without “knowing”. Only at higher levels of intricacy and entanglement do the conscious properties of Mind emerge from Material stuff.
BothAnd Blog ; Post 6 -- Alternative Theory of Reality

'Consciousness is secondary – much more veto than volo – and confabulatory', perhaps selected for as a beneficial social-coordination adaptation which functions as the 'phenomenal complement' to natural language usage. — 180 Proof

I can agree with this assertion. But not necessarily with its implication that Consciousness is a second-class phenomenon in the material world. Astronomers are eagerly searching for signs of Life ex-terra, but ultimately what they seek is creatures like humans, that are aware of what's going on. To discover a Mindless world may be even more disappointing than a Lifeless planet.

My own assessment is that the human notion of FreeWill is "more veto than volo". But what little agency (e.g. executive veto) we do have, is more precious than gold & diamonds, or life itself, to those who can choose the next fork in their path of Life, and to express the thought uppermost in their own Mind. :cool:

PS___I also concur with the "Phenomenal" article, that the "explanatory gap" in understanding Consciousness, is a philosophical quest instead of a scientific gap. Empirical scientists are usually content with dissecting a "problem" into its constituent parts. But theoretical philosophers, such as David Chalmers, cannot rest until they put all those puzzle pieces back together again to form a Whole picture of a living & thinking phenomenon. :joke:

My citing of consciousness, mind etc is in the context of the dualistic view which I understand is why those terms were created. I guess the term consciousness etc is so ingrained into our modern vocabulary/concepts that it means different things to different people. — Brock Harding

Yes. Even devout materialists use different words for Qualia (Mind, Consciousness, etc) and Quanta (Brain, Neural Nets). Their explanation for the implicit recognition of immaterial Qualia is that such ghostly invisible entities are merely epi-phenomena (functions) of underlying physical mechanisms. Hence, Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. So, Matter is primary & fundamental, while Mind is secondary & useless (illusory).

However, some scientists have concluded that the qualitative Mind Stuff we call "Information" is actually the fundamental "substance" of the real world. Moreover, some physicists have equated Information with Energy, which implies that the same Mind Stuff can be both Physical and Causal. If so, then we could take a Monistic worldview, based on Information as the Essence or Single Substance (Spinoza) of the universe : Enformationism.

In that case, both Energy & Matter would be epi-phenomena. Yet, although I wouldn't call them "illusory", we are only conscious of Energy & Mass as ideas (information) in the Mind. That's because, as Kant noted, we never know the "thing itself", but only our mental model of a material thing. :nerd:

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.

epiphenomenal qualia :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2960077

Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the fundamental "stuff" of the universe?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

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

Iirc Dennett's description here is meant to be disparaging. Good post though, I enjoyed it a lot. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. He was trying to show a materialistic alternative to dualism. But he merely succeeded in kicking the immaterial can down the road. :smile:

Kick the can down the road :
put off confronting a difficult issue or making an important decision, typically on a continuing basis.

I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms. — Brock Harding

Yes. Consciousness is not a magic trick, but it is imaginary. Everything we are aware of is an image (or meaning) created by the Brain to represent the reality "out there". According to Daniel Dennett, those "unreal" pictures are projected onto the Cartesian Theater screen. And that mental mirror of the world is what I call "Ideality".

Donald Hoffman calls those subjective images "icons", referring to the little simplified symbols on a computer screen that represent the complex processing operations going on inside the CPU. Those subjective images may create an "illusion", but they are all we ever know about objective reality. "A map is not the territory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

Those "projections" in the mind are "illusory" in the same sense that a slice of reality recorded on film, when projected on a 2D screen, creates the illusion of dynamic 3D reality. Those mental images are also "ethereal" in the sense of "lacking material substance". They do have a real material substrate (neurons), but the pictures are ideal immaterial concepts. So, in my personal blog, I reconcile the ancient notion of real-vs-ideal or Qualia-vs-Quanta Dualism with the modern doctrine of all-encompassing Materialism, in a monistic philosophical perspective I call "BothAnd". :cool:

The Case Against Reality :
The interface theory of perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

IDEALITY SYMBOLIZES REALITY


CARTESIAN THEATER

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220107121453.htm — PoeticUniverse

Does your "blue spot" allow you to focus on Qualia, but then forget where you parked your car?

I visited a niece for Christmas, and she gets very stressed during holidays, presumably because she makes elaborate & creative plans, then gets distracted by several other priorities requiring attention. If you try to talk to her while she's putting-out several fires at the same time, she'll say "I can't think about that now".

When I was younger, I had similar problems with distractions that knocked me off-course from my own extensive to-do-list. She hasn't been clinically diagnosed as ADHD, but she takes Adderall, to help her focus on one-thing-at-a-time, instead of everything-all-at-once. I suspect that Ritalin and Adderall might have some effect on the "blue spot" in the brain. But, it's not enough. Do you have other options for taming scatter-brain, and focusing awareness on pragmatic Quanta, instead of idealistic Qualia? :cool:

Over time, architecture has the ability to transform society or communities. Society transforms architecture over time. If the subject and object impact each other to effect change, what would this relationship be called? Transformative architecture seems one way. — Warren

Architecture has always reflected, and attempted to lead, popular culture by converting idealistic academic concepts into practical material forms. For example, Gothic churches reflected the power and glory of the empirical Catholic church. At the same time, those churches were symbolic of the heavenly aspirations of the common people.

Again, in the early 20th century, radical architects --- inspired by the rise of Socialist aspirations for an egalitarian society --- attempted to transform their oppressive industrial cities with housing for factory workers. One proud and sad example was Corbusier's Unité d'Habitation in Marseille --- also known as Cite' Radiuse. Ironically, despite his radical modernist social and architectural intentions, the brutalist building was not appreciated by it's plebeian inhabitants. They quickly "transformed" the rigid structure to suit their pragmatic & esthetic needs, in part by building crude storage shacks on those colorful balconies.

Undeterred by such grotesque failures of top-down transformation, 21st century architects are currently spearheading social and environmental transformations in their architecture. One approach is dynamic structures than can grow & evolve over time -- sometimes even biologically. Yet, again most of the action is in top-down designs that appeal more to financial interests in novelty than to the conservative tastes of the hoi polloi.

Fortunately, there are still a few architects, including students --- who are not yet caught in the web of commerce --- who cater to the pragmatic needs of lower economic classes, even as they practice their high-brow art. Transforming the penurious "third world" counties in the US with free architectural services. :wink:

UNITE D'HABITATION before transformations by its inhabitants

ECO-MOLECULAR ARCHITECTURE bio-mimicry for the wealthy

RURAL STUDIO for impoverished counties

Plus, in our imagination we see very dim qualia that have about 90% transparency, and full qualia in our dreams. — PoeticUniverse

Wow! Do you see fully fleshed-out Qualia in your dreams? Unfortunately, mine are still only semi-opaque. The reds in my dreams are still grayish, and the redness is only implicit. :meh:

if qualia are the highest point of the brain's own invented symbolic language. — PoeticUniverse

That's an interesting notion. The properties that we attribute to physical phenomena are abstractions from our sensory sensations. And those conceptions from perceptions are what we call mental "symbols" representing reality. I'll have to give that equation more thought. Those qualitative symbols may also be what Donald Hoffman calls "icons" that we "interface" with, as-if they were real. :smile:


The Case Against Reality -- Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes
___Donald Hoffman, Cognitive Psychologist
Note -- the forum management has asked me to stop linking to my own blog for further information on the thread topic. and extended definitions of my terminology. But, if you are interested in my information-based review of this book, you can PM me for a private link. It's a non-commercial vanity blog under an anonymous pen name, so the ideas are free, and you won't be censured if you disagree.

It's probably a focus short cut that other subconscious areas can use for reference to what's going on. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the function of the Mind is to focus the body/brain onto aspects of the world that are relevant and important to the Self. What we know as "The Self", with its selfish Will, is not a separate thing from the body. Instead, it is a mental image of the integrated (Holistic) functioning of all parts of the body, including brain matter and the circulatory system. However, since most of us have difficulty imagining abstract concepts, we tend to create symbolic metaphors to represent the notion of "Self". And one way to imagine the invisible Menta-Physical notion of Self, is as a ghostly outline of the Physical body. Unfortunately, some people tend to reify that mental image as an immaterial Spirit-form running around outside the material Body-form. Of course, reified metaphors are OK for the dramatic purposes of Poetry, but not for the pragmatic probes of Science.

Speaking of "focus', I'd like to clarify what I mean by "Holism". 180 proof seems to think it means "anti-science" and "New Age/Eastern-religion", or "primitive mumbo-jumbo". But it's actually a philosophical focus on Whole Systems instead of Individual Parts. In fact, there is whole new field of Western Science called "Systems Theory", based on a holistic approach to complexity. As a non-empirical theoretical wide-angle focus, the Synthetic Systems perspective is contrasted to the analytical Reductionist approach. It doesn't deny the usefulness of dissection into constituent elements. It merely puts those puzzle pieces back together again to discover how the parts work together to generate a Function that the parts are not capable of individually. Synthetic Theorizing is the opposite side of the same coin as Analytical Reasoning.

Since you are open-minded about less familiar aspects of Science and Philosophy, I think you might enjoy reading the book -- Holism and Evolution -- that preceded the religious philosophy of New Ageism, and inspired 20th century scientists to broaden the scope of their microscopes to include the invisible features of Integrated Systems. In my own amateur philosophizing, I don't pretend to be doing reductive science, but merely continuing the ancient philosophical tradition begun by Aristotle in his second volume of Phusis (Nature), commonly called "Metaphysics". Not by dissecting Matter, but by looking into how the Mind categorizes Darwin's "entangled bank" of Nature into synthetic functional Concepts, such as "Species" and "Selves". :smile:


Synthesis : 1a : the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole.

Holism and Evolution :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

General Systems Theory :
An attempt to formulate common laws that apply to virtually every scientific field, this conceptual approach has had a profound impact on such widely diverse disciplines as biology, economics, psychology, and demography.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bertalanffy+general+systems+theory

Holism and FreeWill :
So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.

"us" is still the subconscious brain will analysis going on just like always. — PoeticUniverse

So, the conscious Mind has no role in human behavior? Materialists seem to believe that awareness of what we are doing is superfluous. Single cell organisms seem to go about their business without any self-awareness : merely action & reaction. Are you no more sentient than an amoeba?

Philosophers have proposed that human consciousness allows us to produce holistic concepts -- generalities, universals, categories -- that don't exist in the physical world. We can't see a category in the real world, but we can conceive it in our imaginary ideal world of the Mind.

Sure, the physical brain is still the mechanism that converts physical sensations into mental constructs, but the Mind/Brain system, as a whole, is what gives humanity a leg-up on the competition from less integrated organisms. The Mind is not a physical thing, it's the holistic function of a hunk of meat. :smile:

A Role For Consciousness :
"Consciousness enables an organism to respond to circumstances grasped as wholes, . . ."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/65/A_Role_For_Consciousness


What is a Function?
A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
Note -- the function is not the machine, but what it does, the processed output. For a brain, the output is not a physical substance, but a menta-physical concept, an idea, an ideal.

PS___Holism is the difference between a semantic Forest and a bunch of trees. The concept is not the referent. The subjective symbol is not the objective object.

Take issue with ↪180 Proof
, I welcome it, but not the textbook stuff, man. — 180 Proof

I am not a student of any particular branch of Science. So, I don't take issue with the textbooks. I leave that up to professional teachers and book editors. Science textbooks must be constantly updated, as the older doctrines are replaced by new understandings. The textbooks that you take as gospel truth, may already be obsolete, since scientific understanding is evolving at a rapid pace.

Surely, you are aware that Quantum Theory and Information Theory have completely flipped the script from only a century ago. Besides, the issues we are discussing in this thread are not scientific in nature, but philosophical. It's not about absolute "facts", but personal opinions about those facts. You take issue with my interpretation of the evidence, and I take issue with your dogmatic attitude. But hey, if we didn't have differing opinions, this forum would have no reason for being. :joke:

In many sciences, the textbooks are often outdated by the time they are printed,
https://thejetstreamjournal.com/24904/news/a-textbook-case-of-outdated-information/

Yes, the one absolute truth in science is there are no absolute truths in science.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-absolute-truths-in-science

Libet wha- — john27

"Many people believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move."

How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/

What's a choice? — john27

You can Google Libet's experimental setup to see how he defined a "choice". But your personal definition may vary. Basically, humans try to change the future by choosing between optional paths into the time-that-has-not-yet-come. But the no-free-will theory says that what you perceive as a choice is actually predestined by your genes and your situation in the world. Libet merely added the notion that your subconscious Brain makes choices automatically, but your conscious Mind takes credit for that fateful selection. If so, your ability to choose between Good & Evil is a delusion. As in Calvinism, you were pre-destined for Heaven or Hell from the very beginning. And there's nothing you can do to change your Fate. :gasp:

" According to Daniel Wegner, for instance, “The experience of willing an act arises from interpreting one’s thought as the cause of the act.” In other words, our sense of making choices or decisions is just an awareness of what the brain has already decided for us".

your lack of scientific literacy — 180 Proof

It's true, that I'm merely an interested layman, not a practicing scientist. But, what you interpret as "lack of scientific literacy" may be simply my tendency to go beyond Reductive dogma to see the Holistic implications of Quantum and Information theories. For example, Einstein was not an empirical technician doing lab experiments. Instead, he was a theoretical philosopher, looking at the big picture, while others were pinning down the details. His radical notion of Relativity forced scientists to view the world from a new perspective. :nerd:

PS___No, I'm not claiming to be the next Einstein. Other scientists & philosophers are already paving the path to a new information-theoretic worldview. Maybe, your own "literacy" is lacking in that area. :smile:

" Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is famous for predicting some really bizarre realities ... he began to consider a notion that was simple but radical."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/einstein-relativity-thought-experiment-train-lightning-genius

In my opinion, free will isn't a popular delusion, its a useful lie. It just renders the world so much more tangible, way easier to work with. — john27

Those who call FreeWill an illusion or delusion, were encouraged by the Libet experiment, showing that the brain is prepared to act before the mind is even aware of choosing to act. But even Libet didn't interpret that as evidence of no Choice. It's true that we typically become aware of what the body is doing, only after the act is underway. So our consciousness of the act is an afterthought. But there is also a momentary gap between the brain's "action potential" and the body's movement. (see "time delay" below)

That's where the "free won't" comes in, giving us an opportunity to veto the action. That notion came from Michael Shermer, editor of SKEPTIC magazine. But FreeWill is more than just a negation. Your ability to imagine and anticipate the future allows you to program your brain to act quickly and appropriately, without waiting for your mind to become aware of what the body is doing.

A vivid example of that train-the-brain notion is found in sports events. Athletes practice, practice, practice, and get "coached-up" to be aware of what they did right and wrong. So, in the game they don't have to think before doing. Steph Curry, weaving & pinwheeling toward the basket, has given his brain a goal, then allows his voluntary neural control system to "go get it". Consequently, even though he is moving like a blur, and flying off-balance through the air, he makes the basket. As the old TV ad said of Michael Jordan, don't think, "just do it". But even the GOAT couldn't make such magic, without practice, to communicate your will to the brain.

Another way to train the brain, is in the process we call "building character". We learn from our mistakes, by becoming aware of what we did wrong. That ethical awareness tells the brain your values, which become subconscious motives for future behavior. So, if you choose to believe that you are a Free Moral Agent, you now have some backup. FreeWill is neither a "lie", nor a delusion, it's what makes humans unique among animals : the ability to change the future, and even to alter the course of evolutionary destiny with what we call Culture ; the result of collective free choices. :smile:


"The time delay gives us the opportunity to change a thought, to cancel an action --- this gives us, in effect, free won't."
Peter Carter, MD; The Single Simple Question

In science, there is one thing, mass-energy, and it is conserved, unable to be created or destroyed;. . . .The more responsible believers, some even theologians, note the begging of the question that leads toward an infinite regress . . . . The first wrong step in direction was to deny that the simplest can give rise to the more and more complex, — PoeticUniverse

I have no problem with Conservation of that-which-exists. But since animated Mass-Energy is eventually embalmed as cold dead Entropy, I can't accept it as eternally existing, in any constructive sense. That single "substance" of reality may be conserved as it flips back & forth between Cause & Effect --- subsequent to the original Instantiation. But when & where did it do its phase changing prior to the point-of-beginning of space-time?

Presumably, in the mathematical Singularity there was no actual mass or energy, only statistical Potential. Once their flip-flopping has begun, there is one-more-thing necessary : the Laws that regulate when & how they change. Unregulated change would result in random chaos. So, "responsible believers" agree that Mass-Energy exists only in space-time, which is destined to end in Heat Death (max Entropy). Who or what was the Lawmaker or Potentiator?

responds to my criticism of the fringes of cutting-edge science as-if I reject the work of serious scientists for religious reasons. But, I have no religion. So, my criticism is merely Philosophical. And is focused on implicit assumptions rather than pragmatic utility. For example, I am dubious of feeble attempts to explain away the Creation Event, by postulating an infinite regression of Big Bangs (question begging??). Since they have no empirical evidence of anything beyond the bounds of our known universe, my layman's guess is as good as their expert shot-in-the-dark.

My typical response to the Complexity-from-Simplicity question is to define the Ultimate Singularity. Just as you are a singular Self composed of millions of interacting parts, the Whole of which our world is an active part is a Singularity : no parts, just Potential (Tendency not Actuality). So, I think space-time Mass-Energy is dependent on infinite-eternal Potential. Nothing comes from Nothing; but Everything comes from Potential. :smile:

Singularity : where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite.

Coincidence vs Creation :
Physicists tend to take Matter & Energy for granted, without questioning their origins, or their philosophical meaning. Matter is merely the furniture of Nature. Energy is the builder of natural things. But as Materialists, they have a problem with the Laws of Nature, since laws are normally found only in human Culture. Laws are aspects of human thought & behavior, as exemplified in Government and Religion.

↪Gnomon
Respectfully, sir, your lack of scientific literacy does not render my layman's comprehension "faith" or the well-established theoretical results of scientists mere "conjectures" open to your idle (paper) doubts. Scientists' speculative 'interpretations' of scientific theories are the very "possibilities for philosophical exploration" you speak of, Gnomon, which are extrapolated from 'problematic' theoretical results and are not just tu quoque more woo-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

Spoken as a True Believer!
However, you seem to dis-respect my "scientific literacy" as a layman. Unless you have formal training in the sciences -- mine was limited to basic classes in each major field -- my comprehension of cutting edge science may be as good as yours -- except for the degree of faith in authorities.
Tu quoque works both ways . . . sir. Woo hoo! :joke:


The meaning of TU QUOQUE is a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what the adversary criticizes in others.

3.Miracle of Creation :
Notable Scientist’s opinions on BB theory
Fred “Big Bang” Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (changed his tune)
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Big-Bang-a-miracle-1

Still incomplete; but no woo-of-the-gaps needed, Gnomon. — 180 Proof

Speaking of "woo" in the breach, your reply reminds me of Apostle Paul's definition of Faith : "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". You expressed your faith in several things unseeable, which you "hope" will some day prove true : "vacuum fluctuation" ; "planck scale" ; "non-spatiotemporal (eternal) vacuum", or "virtual events". I can't confirm or deny such "woo-woo", because I have no experience of "oscillations of emptiness" ; "mathematical measurements of the infinitely small" ; " changes that are not in space or time" ; or "unreal events". I assume that the scientists, who propose such literal non-sense, know what they are talking about. but I have to take it on faith, plus a grain of doubt. So, my confidence is limited by moderate skepticism.

Regarding my own conjectures into the unknown and unknowable, they are not intended to be taken on faith as facts. But merely as possibilities for philosophical exploration. And they are no more woo-ish than the conjectures of scientists into the great beyond that lies in the infinity-eternity before the spatio-temporal Big Bang : e.g. Multiverses, Many Worlds, Parallel Realities, etc. Does your faith in such obscure opinions make you "less uncomfortable" with the religious implications of the mathematically proven creation event (discovered by astronomers, not astrologers) that scientists are still trying to disprove after a century of evasive tactics, such as miraculous instantaneous inflation? :joke: :cool:


Woo-woo is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena.
Note -- the noetic notions mentioned above are "the substance of things hoped for", because they are not evident to the human senses. They are knowable, in the abstract, only to arcane mathematicians. I accept their postulations provisionally, up to the edge of the abyss of ignorance (The Gap) beyond human experience. Past that jumping-off point only theoretical thinkers & philosophers dare to speculate. :nerd:

Yes, but not made from a Higher Will, for not even a composite can be First, much less the complexity of a Planner. There's no Big Guy named Will. — PoeticUniverse

You sound confident that our "unbounded" universe is a cosmic accident. But logically, there must be a nameless Initial Event or First Cause with the extra-mundane Potential to cause a world to appear, as-if-by-magic from who-knows-where. And if there was no Plan or "Planner", how could the complexity of our self-observing world emerge from a random confluence of atoms? Randomness is patternless.

For example, a human egg is just a jelly-like lump of protoplasm. Left alone, it does nothing, and is soon recycled into pre-proto-stuff. Yet, when a wiggle-tail protozoan accidentally-on-purpose bumps into it, a "miracle" occurs : it comes to life. The sperm conveys nothing new to the egg, except Information. And that integrated genetic data becomes the blueprint (the plan or program) for a new living being. A holistic self-directed & self-motivated & self-aware organism born from the convergence of abstract Information with the compulsion to follow its inborn pattern of goals & guides.

So, what would you call the hypothetical "seed" that impregnated the hypothetical nanoscopic nucleus of Potential, to initiate a program of complexification that is still exploring new possibilities after 14 billion solar cycles? The cosmic impetus for such a flourishing program of evolution might warrant a name expressing the origin of a teleological future form. or an inevitable succession of events leading to some future finale. So, what more descriptive appellation could you find than the four letter English word : "Will"? :wink:

Will : 1. expressing the future tense.
2. expressing inevitable events.

The manifest complexity of many parts of the universe, especially living organisms and their byproducts, was formerly thought to be an expression of divine creativity, but is now widely believed to result from a general capacity of matter, implicit in known physical laws, to "self-organize" under certain conditions.
https://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/94_Bennett.pdf
Note -- the matter, energy & laws are taken for granted, requiring no explanation, by pragmatic scientists. But impractical philosophers tend to push the envelope beyond conventional assumptions. Under what "conditions" do inert matter, and un-directed energy, learn to self-organize?

PS___Once a computer program is underway, it requires no further external input, but due to its internal logic & governing criteria (operating system), it proceeds to "self-organize" itself, under specified conditions, by combining old information in novel ways. In a sense, the program is like a living organism, using available energy & material (data) to construct the mathematical structure we call "Software". And the final output will be (future tense) the answer to a question proposed by the Programmer. Some questions can only be answered by doing the math. :nerd:

Humans tend to suck. The internet is just this presented in a hyper way. Layers of obfuscation created by the consuming of technology.. What's so great about the act of survival? What's so great about our little hobbies, friends, and family? Really, the internet is just a mirror of this lack at the center. We crave more because we cannot just be. Being and becoming are important themes here. Internet is a network of manifested obfuscation of becoming. But being is really not much better. Just thereness there.. so we diddle and daddle and doodle and dawdle. — schopenhauer1

In my experience, humans tend to suck and blow. So, like everything else in our imperfect world, we have to take the good with the bad. As they say, "that's life". But we don't have to overdose on either.

Back in the good old days, before mass communication, most news was mundane local gossip. And really bad news was rare. But now, with instant communication, news is global & instantaneous, and mostly bad news. As they used to say about newspapers, "if it bleeds, it leads". So, for those who pay attention to such things. they are inundated with reports of "man's inhumanity to man". Even uncommon "man bites dog" stories are told & retold, even if the event is a thousand miles away. It's that broadened scope and wearisome repetition that makes the whole world seem to suck more than in the Golden Age before technology gave us eight billion neighbors.

Consequently, as you say, internet news is mostly bad news "presented in a hyper way". Ironically, the human brain is always on the lookout for threats to survival. Hence, it's innately interested in tittle-tattle gossip, especially scandalous & terrifying information. But when such news is not relevant to your local situation, such fake & fatalistic news tends to color your outlook a gloomy gray, even when your own skies are sunny. You are the center of your worldview. And that shadow can only penetrate your personal corner of the world, if you let it in.

To avoid the extremes of Optimism or Pessimism, I call myself a "Peptomist". That's why I usually try to look away from the burning building or the bloody crash, and note the heroic firemen with a saved child, or just return to my little comfy nest, where little is newsworthy. If you look for it, there is usually some good news on the back page -- even on the internet. :cool:

“Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.”
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

“Humanity needs injustice, which it can savour through the bitterness, the self-directed Schadenfreude that is one of the variants on the spectrum of misfortune. This mortification is particularly noticeable among the most celebrated, who like to see themselves as betrayed and misunderstood."
― Jean Baudrillard, Cool Memories V: 2000 - 2004

"Some people see the glass half full. Others see it half empty. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be". — George Carlin, 1936-2008, American comedian

"An optimist expects his dreams to come true; a pessimist expects his nightmares to."
— Laurence J Peter, 1919-1990, Canadian writer & educator

"An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?"
— René Descartes, 1596-1650, French philosopher

My own views on the matter is the internet makes it possible to create virtual communities that transcend geographical borders e.g. this forum. When such virtual communities will be given full country status is an open question but I have feeling that it's just a matter of time. What sorta governments virtual countries will choose will have ramifications for real world countries and governments, democracy included. — Agent Smith

Yes. It was the ability of modern communication systems to transcend traditional borders and social islands that made pioneers of the internet optimistic for an egalitarian New World Order. But many of those progressive idealists were appalled at the speed with which corporate & partisan interests came to dominate the system by manipulating personal interests & prejudices into exclusive cliques. However, such innovations as the global Starlink satellite system, may quickly allow people in underdeveloped areas of the world to play catch-up. And one possible outcome might be for them to escape from the tyranny of banana republic dictators.

On the other hand, techno-communities could also result into a retreat into internet tribalism, instead of nationalism or globalism. Let's hope it will bring us together, as in some non-shooter cooperative video games such as SimCity. At this point in time, most online games seems to be cooperative only in terms of making war on enemy communities. The Civilization games are mostly empire builders, trying to recapture the Glory That Was Rome. Even virtual empires may tend to grow and prosper at the expense of their colonies and local communities. Unless we learn from history, instead of merely repeating the same interpersonal mistakes. Unfortunately, one of those lessons is that freedom must be limited & regulated in order to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons :cool:

Internet debased :
Berners-Lee has seen his creation debased by everything from fake news to mass surveillance. But he’s got a plan to fix it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets

Tragedy of the Commons :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Do you really think that collectively people have the guts to do as they please? — Raymond

Collectively, people are sheep who follow their gutsy leaders. That's why we elect a few bellwethers to lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Yet even those influencers are often indecisive when circumstances place them "in a new direction, for which we have no historical precedent." Somehow, we usually muddle through. Our collective survival instinct forces us to adapt to changing and challenging conditions. And it has ever been thus. :cool:

"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory."
___W. Edwards Deming

I believe that the military-industrial state will eventually collapse, possibly even in our lifetime, and that a majority of us (if prepared) will muddle through to a freer, more open, less crowded, green and spacious agrarian society. (Maybe; of course it may be only a repeat of the middle ages.)”
— Edward Abbey

Not by "whom", but to do what they have to do as how they are. How would the will not follow the will? What other source would do the willing instead? — PoeticUniverse

How could the A> human Will (the decider) not follow B> whose Will? The Accidental Impetus of Determinism? Or the downward directional causation of Energy/Enformy? Who or what was the Aboriginal Arbiter, or the Initial Impulsive Intender? Whatever that First Cause was, we infer that it had the Potential for Life & Mind & Willful behavior in its creatures. Could a cosmic explosion do all that with no deciding & directing Will of its own? Again, who is this Will you speak of? :chin: :wink:

The Salient Source :
Who or What programmed
a schematic system
to emerge & evolve
from a sub-atomic speck
of potential probability
or embryonic egg
. . . . . . . . . .into a
constantly complexifying cosmos
that even fleet-footed fluorescence
can't cross in epochal eons?
___Guess Groking Gnomon

There are more rules/laws/regulations now than in the past is the premise I'm working with. Given so, doesn't it look like democracy is a sham? After all, our freedoms have been drastically curtailed over the timespan between the very first proto-governments and the current "democratic" zeitgeist. Typically, the average person living in a democratic country today has less freedom than the average person living under an authoritarian regime a thousand years ago. — Agent Smith

Yes. The US is quite law-bound, but it seems necessary to regulators, in part, to reign-in the torrid pace of technological & social change. Consequently, I have long advocated that lawmakers be required to repeal one law on the books for every new law they pass. That might weed-out some of our bizarre or antiquated laws (no bear wrestling ; illegal to impersonate a priest ; boogers must not be flicked into the wind ; etc)

I haven't made a study of comparative freedom in so-called democratic versus autocratic regimes. But Steven Pinker has done similar research, and has concluded that, despite our tangled web of laws, modern technocracies are healthier, wealthier, safer, and freer than in most earlier societies. Besides, the United States has never been a true Democracy. The founding fathers argued both pro & con, and finally reached an imperfect, but workable hybrid system of checks & balances. Over time though, we seem to have moved farther away from the agrarian ideal of independent local farmer citizens, into a consumer society dominated by inter-connected global cash-flow corporations. Yet, again our hybrid system -- part democracy, part socialism, part oligarchy -- is flexible enough to adapt to accelerated evolution of human culture and technology.

As the OP asserted, the internet is driving us in a new direction, for which we have no historical precedent. So, let's hope our modern hybrid systems of government are agile and flexible enough to adapt and evolve to "fit" the new social & technical environmental niches. :cool:

The inboard motor of neuronal analysis still does what it has to as what it was meant to do. — PoeticUniverse

Hmmm! Meant by whom to do what? :chin:

I wasn't familiar with the tech term "neuronal analysis". Can they interpret the neural patterns to reveal the subjective meanings being processed? Can they read subjective intentions from those tea leaves? If not, how would they know that neuronal changes can motivate the body to turn toward a specific goal, rather just moving indiscriminately hither thither and yon -- like an outboard motor with no one holding the tiller? :joke:

neuronal analysis :
Analyzing morphological changes of a nerve cell (i.e., neuron) is one of the key methods for understanding the behavior of neurons in response to various stimuli
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep17062
Note : I assume they measure physical inputs (stimuli) and outputs (behavioral response). Stimulus & response is Behaviorism --- suitable for understanding animal instincts. But Poets and non-scientists are typically more interested in the meaningful inputs (information) and purposeful outputs (intentions) of human minds. The "doing what it has to do" is just mechanics or instincts.

Ah, in the whole you’re just afraid of being unfree,
But, hey, look, behold! There is still so much beauty!
A sublime law, indeed, else what beauty could there be?
The coin’s other side speaks—a toss up, weighted equally. — PoeticUniverse

Who's afraid of being dominated by Determinism? Not me! Stacks of stones may imprison my bones, but Determinism will never un-free me.

If both sides of the coin are equal, each flip will be neutral. Hence, "no direction home", as noted by Bob Dylan. In order to make progress or to choose beauty, we need to influence the coin-flip in some way. Otherwise, it will just be a meaningless random pattern. Should we be more afraid of "being unfree" or of being meaningless? :cool:

WHICH PATTERN IS ORDERED AND MEANINGFUL???


https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/when-random-doesnt-look-random/

I's some time since I read 1984, but wasn't Orwell pointing out the dangers of totalitarianism rather than specifically communism? — Tim3003

I assume that Orwell's book was directed at totalitarianism in general. But, at the time he wrote 1984, in 1949, the Nazis were history, and Communism was ascendant. So, his specific criticism was directed at the Russian implementation of Communism. Orwell was sympathetic to Democratic Socialism, and saw that Russia had overcome all odds to end the Tsarist autocracy, and Fascist regimentation, only to create a centralized political & economic system that was just as stifling to individual freedom as its predecessors.

Orwell may have been in favor of the Communist dream, but became disillusioned at the oppressive reality under Stalin. Although he fought in the Spanish Civil War against the Fascists, he had clashes with the Russians, who as outsiders were trying to dominate that internal conflict. Ironically, he even sported a Hitlerian toothbrush mustache at one time. So, I think you are correct that his book was illustrating the errors of top-down government in general. Again, ironically, some Americans today seem to view such total control of the populace as a good thing, even as they are willing to overthrow our current "out-of-control" government.. History has a tendency to repeat itself. :sad:

A simple but telling truth: There are more laws today then there were in the past. As I suspected, it's our freedom that needs to be checked rather than our lack of it. Was George Orwell right? Is the future of humanity an authoritarian world order? — Agent Smith

I haven't studied historical trends in depth. But I suspect that, as Hegel's Dialectic indicates, governments tend to oscillate between Permissive and Restrictive. Hence, generally tracking close to a moderate middle position. Therefore, I suppose that any centralized World Government would also vacillate somewhere in the middle between the poles of Liberal and Conservative, Democracy and Autocracy. Of course, I could be wrong.

The predecessor of the current "world order", the United Nations, was the League of Nations. It was short-lived because its charter gave it no power to enforce its rules. Due to the experience of two world wars with no world police, the UN was given a bit more authority over sovereign nations, but remains almost toothless, primarily due to the fear of developing into a repressive Autocracy.

For some people the notion of a "New World Order" sounds like a godsend compared to the current international disorder. But to others, a NWO would inevitably exceed the bounds of its constitution, in a bid to become a World Empire. And its ruling class would be the semi-criminal Oligarchs of developed nations. Fortunately for us peons, even the powers-that-be tend to offset the extremes, by disputing among themselves about the Need-for-Change versus Maintaining-the-Status-Quo.

Personally, while I admit the danger of a slippery slope, I doubt that an Orwellian world is likely, unless the world gets bombed back into the stone age --- as in some post-apocalyptic movies. And I tend to be optimistic enough to assume that Reason will ultimately prevail. Others may not agree, and prepare to despair. Nothing daunted, I hope for an upward slope. :smile:

Note -- Orwell prophesied the spread of Communism. But that seemingly inevitable domino-fall eventually ended in compromises with Capitalism and Democracy. Even Jeremiah's doom & gloom was offset by the more positive predictions by Hananiah.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2028&version=NIV

"If these mental properties affected the behavior of particles in the same way that physical properties like mass and electric charge do, then they would simply be another kind of physical property. . . . .Or is there something definitely new about it—either an entirely new kind of substance, as Rene Descartes would have had it, or at least a separate kind of property over and above the merely material?" . . .

I can always depend on Banno to get to the heart of a philosophical tangle. Traditionally, Dualism has postulated two different substances : A> physical, material & tangible, and B> meta-physical, immaterial & intangible. The latter was often assumed to be "super-natural" and somewhat miraculous. Hence, such "substances" were rejected by scientists as "beyond the purview of physical Science", hence literally and figuratively "immaterial". Those ghostly substances were relegated to the irrelevance of mystical and religious mumbo-jumbo, suitable only for primitive minds.

However, I don't think the "primitive minds" of ancient philosophers were defective. Some of them were clearly geniuses, but were working with an incomplete understanding of how the world works. So, I have tried to update their pre-scientific theories in view of 21st century knowledge. By combining non-classical & counter-intuitive insights of Quantum Theory with the novel notion of "Information as abstract (non-physical) Data that can be embodied in various substrates", I have concluded that the fundamental "substance" of Reality is actually Enformation (the power to enform), more broadly defined than Shannon's bits. In essence, it's like an ephemeral Quantum Field, but in practice it is like Energy : able to transform from invisible Causation into the tangible stuff we know as Matter, and back again : E=MC^2.

For modern scientific purposes, the concept of a single substance with dual forms is now taken for granted. But for Classical science it would have seemed bizarre. For example, Isaac Newton would have found the definition of Gravity-as-warped-space inconceivable. Now quantum scientists are forced to accept as realistic, such counter-intuitive notions as a dualistic Wave-Particle (one substance in two forms). So, I shouldn't come as a surprise that the mundane Information that has transformed modern culture could take on multiple forms. Hence, the apparent duality or multiplicity of Reality is built upon a single fundamental substance : the power to transform, as exemplified in Phase Change.

If "Information is neither Matter nor Energy" as asserted in the link below, what is it? My answer is that it is the un-realized "substance" that we call "Potential" : the ability to become both Matter and Energy. Thus, a single substance (monism) can take on two real forms (dualism). And, since "information" originally referred to the contents of a human mind (ideas), it can even take on a third form : Mind. Thus, mental phenomena are emergent forms of material and energetic "substances". And that is the Primary Substance of Aristotelian Metaphysics, which I label "Menta-Physics" for those who are able to accept Quantum Queerness, but not Metaphysical immateriality. :nerd:


"Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers." ___Isaac Newton

"Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent." ___Isaac Newton

Primary Substance : According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things that, according to the system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Note : Atoms were once considered fundamental, but then superseded by tinier & tinier particles down to quarks, and now by holistic Fields. Hypothetically and Collectively, all physical fields compose the generic Enformation field.

Information is neither matter nor energy. ... In near equilibrium thermodynamics the amount of energy needed to store or transmit one bit is proportional to the absolute temperature. In physics we have both bits, qubits and e-bits, and these are incompatible notions of information.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Information_matter_energy_or_anything_else

IF there are two things in the world - say a physical world and mind - then how is it that mind can work to change physical stuff? — Banno

This is the conundrum that I believe can be resolved by accepting the poly-morphic nature of Information. If Information is "Mind-stuff", and also "Energy", and also "Matter", then a transformation from one to the other is plausible. Mind provides the Intention (direction, goal), and the body provides the Energy (ATP), to cause a specified part of the material body to move. Thus, Mind "works to change physical stuff". And that's how it is. :smile:

So science doesn't necessarily collapse if the mind at least in part exists outside of the physical as we know it? — TiredThinker

"Outside the physical" is what I call "Meta-Physics" or "Menta-Physics" or "Mathe-Physics". Modern Science is materialistic, and does not concern itself with anything outside that narrow definition. So, Science won't "collapse" under the weight of evidence for any parallel realities. In fact, since the 20th century, it has been forced to accommodate several immaterial and non-empirical notions, such as invisible fields of "Virtual" (not quite real) particles, and sub-atomic "Strings or "Loops" of energy that are far beyond our current ability to resolve them. Likewise, Multiple universes and parallel worlds are strictly imaginary, yet plausible to scientists in terms of mathematics. Consequently, scientists are forced to stretch their definition of "materialism" to fit the strange dimensions of the quantum foundation of Reality.

Therefore, such Mathe-Physical concepts as quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") are provisionally accepted as useful-but-unproveable hypotheses. That is, they accept the math, but remain agnostic about the philosophical significance of their reality. Do particles really "tunnel" through solid objects without a tunnel, and without moving through the space between point A & B? That's what seems to happen, although it's counter-intuitive. Instead of "collapsing", Science merely adopts new rules (see "ghostly" below). So, it's mostly feckless philosophers who concern themselves with the meaning of such bizarre immaterial concepts.

However, we must hope that sincere scientists will adapt to Meta-Physics (the metaphysical aspects of reality) as the evidence becomes more plausible or undeniable. Yet, at the moment, such notions as life-after-death remain in the province of Anecdotal and Mythical evidence. Subjective "evidence" may be acceptable to some philosophers and "soft scientists, who like to explore Possibilities and Potentials, but not to "hard" physical scientists, who insist on Objective evidence . . . or mathematical pointers into the unknowable. :nerd:

Anecdotal : 1. evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them "His conclusions are not supported by data; they are based only on anecdotal evidence".

Mythical : 1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history. 2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination

Subjective : 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Soft Sciences : Any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

How Ghostly Quantum Particles Fly Through Barriers Almost Instantly :
At the subatomic level, particles can fly through seemingly impassable barriers like ghosts. Particles can pass through solid objects not because they're very small (though they are), but because the rules of physics are different at the quantum level.
https://www.livescience.com/65043-tunneling-quantum-particles.html

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).