In what else than matter can the mind reside? — Cornwell1

The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. Many of the posts on this thread are talking past each other. When the topic is about "immaterialism" it's referring to Qualia, not Quanta. Qualia, as subjective patterns, can reside in a variety of material objects. Pattern recognition occurs, not in a Brain, but in a Mind. The "observer" is not a homunculus. Qualia is "what it feels like" to observe a pattern of incoming information.

Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. Reductionism ad absurdo, ("reducing to an absurdity.") Yet some, but not all, physicists persist in trying to maintain an illusion of the old Materialistic model of hard little atoms as the fundamental elements of reality. For example, what they now call "virtual" particles, are not bits of matter, but merely mathematical points in an imaginary grid. A "point" has no spatial dimensions, so we can't see them, we can only imagine them. Like the Cheshire Cat, the matter just fades away, leaving only a smile. :grin:


From Quanta to Qualia: How a Paradigm Shift Turns Into Science :
Ever since the development of quantum mechanics in the first part of the 20th century, a new world view has emerged. Today, the physicalist objective assumption that objects exist independently of acts of observation has been challenged. The repercussions of this radical challenge to our common-sense perception of the world are far-reaching, although not yet generally realized. Here we argue that there is a complementary view to the way science which is being practiced, and that consciousness itself is primary and qualia form the foundation of experience. We outline the arguments of why the new science of qualia will tie objects that are being perceived to the subjective experience, through the units of subjective experience called qualia.
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/152/

WHERE'S THE CAT?

Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof
Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile: — Gnomon

Language, Mr. Proof. Watch your language! There are sensitive immaterial minds on this forum. :grin:

↪Gnomon
"Immaterialism" as in e.g. dis-embodied minds? :eyes: Res ipsa loquitur. — 180 Proof

No. Once again you miss the point, because you can't put your physical finger on a Function. The target is invisible to the eye, but knowable to a rational Mind. Do you have one of those spooky non-things? Or are you ipso facto dis-enminded?

"Immaterialism" refers to the mental functions of embodied brains. It's not about wandering ghosts or out-of-body experiences. That would be Spiritualism. "If one did not start with a materialist bias, materialism would not be invoked as an explanation for a whole range of experiments in neuroscience " ___Michael Egnor, neuroscientist

Instead, it's the age-old philosophical category of mental Qualia as contrasted with material Quanta. If you are so sure that the Mind is a material object, you could prove it by posting a picture of one. Does the mind show-up in electron microscope images? Even atoms look like anonymous balls of fluff. So what does the Mind look like, gray matter or white matter? The burden of proof is back in your court. :joke:

what is a function? :
A technical definition of a function is: a relation from a set of inputs to a set of possible outputs where each input is related to exactly one output. ... We can write the statement that f is a function from X to Y using the function notation f:X→Y.
https://mathinsight.org/definition/function
Note -- The function of a mechanism is not the machine, but the purpose of the process.

Is the Mind Immaterial or Material? :
Of course, dualism doesn’t necessarily answer these questions, merely pushing it back a level, but materialism has yet to explain it either, generating a sort of infinite regress of homunculi.
https://authortomharper.com/2019/06/13/is-the-mind-immaterial-or-material/

Science Points To An Immaterial Mind :
For example, I pointed out that abstract thought cannot be localized to one specific region of the brain, whereas perception and movement are highly localizable. I interpreted this as being most consistent with the immateriality of abstract thought.
Michael Egnor; neurosurgeon, and Senior Fellow, Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/science-points-to-an-immaterial-mind/

WHERE CAN WE FIND THE MIND?

Are these philosophies of finitude's bringing purpose/meaning just platitudes or wishful thinking? Isn't terror the natural and most justified human condition? — Yvonne

No. The "terror" of death is usually caused by either fear of the unknown, or the angst of damnation. It's ironic that we are afraid of ignorance, the abyss of unknowing, even though we inhabited that same mysterious darkness for uncounted eons before we were born. We emerged from the nothingness of dreamless sleep, and are fated to return for an endless nap. Our life is bracketed with the Big Sleep. In our finite world, we have no experience with infinity, but we can imagine it. Yet, when mundane maladies are available, why worry about imaginary evils?

Some religions are happy to give us something to worry about. First, they entice us with the unlikely notion of everlasting Life, then negatively motivate us with the prospect of either everlasting oblivion, or of eternal torture in full awareness. Those who believe what they are told as naive gullible children can be excused for living in terror of Life's dead-end. But those who question such scary campfire stories can rise above irrational fear of death, and perhaps even embrace it as the Big Rest or Long Respite from striving. Just let it be. :cool:

Our revels now are ended :
‘We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep.’
___Shakespeare, The Tempest

I assume you replied to me? Yeah, poor Christopher. That Dawkins book is a laugh! He litterally claims he was enlightened by the truth that people and animals are slaves of genes and memes. Now what a meme! — HKpinsky

Although Dawkins is clearly opposed to formal religions, which he believes makes meme-slaves of believers, he retains a somewhat religious perspective, similar to that of Carl Sagan, in the form of humble awe at the magnificence of the real world. :smile:

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?”
___Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow

What's the mathematical structure of a piece of music? — Cornwell1

In theory, everything in the universe can be analyzed down to its mathematical structure (conceptual inter-relationships). Math is not a physical object. It is instead the logical order (organization) of things and ideas. Since Logic is not made of matter, it is only knowable to a rational mind. Even "un-cuttable" atoms & in-divisible quarks have an internal or fundamental mathematical structure. The emotional sonic structure of music is intuitive for most minds, but only rational minds can infer the logical mathematical organization of music. :nerd:

What is Mathematical Music Theory? Mathematical music theory uses modern mathematical structures to 1. analyze works of music (describe and explain them), 2. study, characterize, and reconstruct musical objects such as the consonant triad, the diatonic scale, the Ionian mode, the consonance/dissonance dichotomy...
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~tmfiore/1/FioreWhatIsMathMusTheoryBasicSlides.pdf

What Is A Mathematical Structure? :
A mathematical structure is nothing but a (more or less) complicated organization of smaller, more fundamental mathematical substructures. Numbers are one kind of structure, and they can be used to build bigger structures like vectors and matrices
https://truebeautyofmath.com/what-is-a-mathematical-structure/

Logic and mathematics are two sister-disciplines, because logic is this very general theory of inference and reasoning, and inference and reasoning play a very big role in mathematics,
http://serious-science.org/logic-and-mathematics-7243

Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof

Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile:

what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise. — 180 Proof
Do you think mind=noise??? — RogueAI

's assertion was intentionally ridiculous, because he's trying to make your position sound absurd. His vigorous defense of Orthodox Materialism, attacks what he perceives as heretical Immaterialism (or spiritualism, or idealism). To him, Mind is a Myth or Illusion. So any reference to such phantoms is only so much noise.

I would re-word his quoted phrase as : "the rational Mind interprets meaningful signals from incoming Information. That which is not informative is noise." I actually enjoy sparring with him, just as I used to dialog with devout Christian propagandists, because it's good exercise for my own rational faculties to distinguish Information from Noise. :grin:

PS__I will apologize in advance for mis-representing his philosophical position. But that's because he mostly attacks other beliefs, but doesn't make his own position clear. That's a common tactic in propaganda. It's a one-way dialog. :cool:

A particle is no concept. It's a reality. — Cornwell1

Is that an empirical fact, or a theoretical belief? Is the particle physical or virtual? :smile:

Do virtual particles actually physically exist? :
Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word virtual particles are particlemorphic ( :) ), having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist

Your flavor of idealism, G, like the others, conflates ontology and epistemology – what is real = what i know / what i know = what is real – from which many instances of category mistakes follow. A "worldview" is dogma (i.e. sophistry at best), IMO, not a philosophy. — 180 Proof

I'm sorry my "flavor of Idealism" doesn't suit your personal taste. Your mis-interpretation and mis-characterization of my worldview doesn't offend me, but it does amuse me. You seem to be spooked by a ghost that's merely reflected light. My BothAnd model does indeed "conflate" (or conciliate) the nature-of-being, and theory-of-knowledge. But that's not just a New Age position, it has become fairly common among scientists, especially Quantum Physicists. It doesn't deny Reality, but, unlike hardline Materialism, merely includes mental properties within the scope of Being and Knowing. Your worldview might be dogmatic & one-sided, but mine is necessarily open-minded & holistic. Open to both material Actuality and to mental Possibility. My world is not Black & White, it includes all the colors of the rainbow.

You accuse me of dogmatic anti-reality Idealism, when my model is actually a blend of classical Realism and quantum Idealism (see below). I'm not making this sh*t up. I get most of it from sober physicists, not Age of Aquarius astrologers. However, I am grateful that some people are at least looking at the other side of the Real coin. When I go to the local health food store, owned by a turban-topped American Sikh, I admire some of the artistic trinkets that portray nature, not as dead matter, but as a living organism. While I ignore the books on Goddesses, Gurus, & Angels, I appreciate the reverent attitude toward the Life that animates the material world. Peace & Love. :grin: :victory:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

Quantum Idealism? :
In his book The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose points to two of the most popular ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics given by physicists: “(a) there is no reality expressed in the (mathematical) formalism of quantum mechanics at all, and the diametrically opposite view of (b) that the quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/quantum-idealism/

Worldview : a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Sophistry :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something.
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/

Category mistake — 180 Proof

Yes. My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter. Therefore, in order to remove Mind from the world, you'd have to eliminate all thinking creatures. Especially humans. Just think, for almost 14 billion years, the universe consisted of your preferred Category. No immaterial ideas or mistaken opinions to ruin the perfection of a smooth-running physical machine. It's been all downhill since the first caveman saw fire as a tool, not just a scary physical phenomenon like lightening. :joke:

How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence, please. — 180 Proof

The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years. Only in the last couple of centuries have smart people acted as-if they were mindless. The evidence is Rational inference, not Physical measurement. So, mindless hunks of matter are oblivious to it. :cool:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note -- Where is the physical evidence for any of the above principles? Do you have a sense for immaterial principles? I do; it's called "Reason".

I don't see a problem in the particle concept — Cornwell1

Rovelli doesn't have a problem with the concept (idea) of a particle. But the reality of a particle is ambiguous (metaphor or object?). As a waveform, it is an immaterial mathematical function, and only when that (potential) function "collapses" does it take on an (actual) Eigenstate (inherent position or momentum). That's when its mathematical qualities convert to physical properties. The wave-function can be calculated, but the physical state must be measured. :smile:

What is a particle? :
These difficulties have lead some to suggest that in general QFT should not be interpreted in terms of particle states, but rather in terms of eigenstates of local operators.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409054

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? :
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof

The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. You can't depend on shape or texture or smell to differentiate good ideas from bad ideas. But your sixth sense of Reason is your Lie Detector.

Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has a built-in logic, but it still must be programmed with instances of both signal and noise, in order to have a basis for comparison. A rose aroma in a bottle might smell as sweet, but it could be artificial. That's why we have mandated labels, because the senses can be fooled by cheap imitations (Wakisaki). :joke: .

Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties. — Cornwell1

Ideally, yes. But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs. That's why Skepticism requires, not only a critique of others, but a self-assessment of your own values. I would like to think that I am always objective, but posting on this forum is a quick way to be challenged to re-assess your own philosophical position. :cool:

So again, here you are explaining how things are for everyone, not just yourself. So again, you are projecting your ideas about how things are independent of yourself, and how things are even if I were to disagree or not be aware of these "facts" that you are asserting. — Harry Hindu

That's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. So, apparently, you are "explaining how things are" for me. Can you point to a "fact" that I was asserting? My assertions were in the form of personal opinions. Of course, those opinions are based on the facts as-I-see-them. But you seem to see them differently. That's OK though. That's what a philosophy forum is all about. Yet you are accusing me of Pontificating, which the last thing I would do. Sounds like you are "projecting your ideas" onto me. What did I say to cause you to portray my personal opinions as dogmatic declarations? :gasp:

Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what? — Harry Hindu

Just the opposite. My philosophical position is BothAnd, not Either/Or. As noted in the quote above, we obtain Information via our physical senses, and our meta-physical reasoning. But I suppose that a hard-line Realist would reject any information that doesn't have a physical instance. That's what I referred to as being "blind in one eye". Did you miss the link above, that says "reality is not what you think it is"? Rovelli is not rejecting Meta-physics, but pointing-out that Materialism is not a complete (true or accurate) model of Reality. :smile:

PS___ I apologize for sounding defensive. But your "disagreement" seems visceral & aggressive instead of rational & philosophical. Come, let us reason together.

Don't think so. Quarks can be viewed as triplets — Cornwell1

I'd like to "view" that unitary triplet. Can you post a picture? :wink:

Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note -- For over two thousand years the Atom was defined as the true elementary indivisible particle. If Quarks have no structure, why are they hypothetically portrayed with internal parts? The Holy Trinity is also described as One deity with three forms : up, down, and yummy. :joke:

ONE QUARK IN THREE FLAVORS blueberry, strawberry and lemon-lime

Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute .. — Edmund

Yes. In this thread we are arguing over the same polarized philosophical positions as Physics (Materialism) vs Metaphysics (Idealism). I reconcile that apparent contraposition with the BothAnd philosophy. I suppose you could call it a perspective that shifts its position depending on the relation between subject & object. That's similar to a Doppler Shift or Gravitational Lens Shift of stars. The star is not really changing position but merely it's apparent position relative to the observer. :nerd:

Meta-Physics :
4. "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. "Meta-physics" refers to the ideas 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.
BothAnd Blog glossary

META-PHYSICAL PROBOSCIDEAN


PHYSICAL ELEPHANTIDAE

That idea seems to predict well, but it models phenomena that are poorly understood. — jgill

Yes. Tegmark's mathematical model of the world is an attempt to describe the "poorly understood" phenomena on the Quantum level of reality. We know pretty well what Quarks do, but have no idea what they are. We can't compare them to anything in our sensory experience of the world. The definition of a Quark, or of Superposition, sounds about as counter-intuitive as the Catholic Trinity. :joke:

But what constitutes a mathematical "Field" (why do you write it with a capital F?). — Cornwell1

Hypothetical Quantum Fields consist of abstract relationships (ratios ; vectors) that are not real things but ideal mathematical "points" & "links". When those points have measurable values, the field can be assumed to be real. I capitalize the word "field" to emphasize that it is not a real object, but an abstract model of some feature of Reality. I capitalize "Reality" to emphasize that it's a mental model of what's outside your skull, not necessarily the ding an sich. :nerd:

A field is a mathematical abstraction. ... Vector fields are not real, for the same reasons vectors are not real; the electric field is real ..
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322983/how-real-are-fields

Ding An Sich : (in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.

I think that here you conflate reality with fantasy, as Tegmark seems to do. — Cornwell1

No. I don't conflate "Reality" with "Ideality", I merely compare them as hypothetical mental models, not the actual " totality of real things and events". Our models of reality are not necessarily "fantasies", but they are inherently "imaginary". So, I'd be careful about labeling Tegmark's speculations as "fantasy". It's possible that he knows something you don't. As I said in the post, I don't agree with all of his conjectures, but they seem to be based on a deep insight into Reality (objects : things) and Ideality (models ; ideas). :smile:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
book by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

A model of reality explains how the universe was created and how it operates. You might think that this is a definition of reality itself, but it isn't, which can be illustrated by looking at the most popular model, known as naïve realism. In a nutshell, naïve realism says that what you see is what you get.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/The-Most-Popular-Model-of-Reality-Is-Wrong-14842693.php

According to physicist Max Tegmark, there are nothing but mathematical structures and 'the physical world' is just a nested network of mathematical structures to which we (observers) happen to belong, or inhabit. . . . This looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

I've only read one of Tegmark's books, but I have a general idea of "what he's talking about". I'm not sure I agree with all his speculations, but his basic notion that Reality is fundamentally mathematical makes sense to me, especially in light of Quantum Physics, where the structure of reality is a mathematical Field.

Personally, I prefer the more inclusive term "Information" (Matter + Energy + Mind) to the austere abstract ideality of a pure mathematical structure underlying the messy concrete material world. My view combines a bit of Plato's Idealism (LOGOS) with a smidgen of Spinoza's universal substance Monism (G*D). Consequently, my world model consists of both Material objects (known by senses) and Mathematical (Mental) structures (known by reason). :nerd:

Substance or Structure :
Baruch Spinoza denied Descartes' "real distinction" between mind and matter. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple "attributes". . . . . The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Our Mathematical Universe :
My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
___Max Tegmark, theoretical physicist
Note to self -- The basic element of my Information Universe is the "Re-El" (reality element) which is a ratio between existence and non-existence (1 or 0). The universe as a whole, is continuous, but its constituent parts are discrete.

From a realist perspective, bias is a dirty word , a failure to grasp what is truly there to be grasped, if only as an unreachable ideal, an ‘unattainable perfection’. For post-realism, objectivity is a dirty word , concealing what is always already there for us, and ‘bias’ speaks to the actual world, not to a flawed representation of it. — Joshs

Yes. In the ideal true perfect model of Reality, there can be no bias or ignorance. But that model only exists in heaven. We can strive to reach the unreachable star of perfect objectivity. But only Idealists believe they are already there. :joke:


To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to run where the brave dare not go

This is my quest . . . .

To reach the unreachable, the unreachable
The unreachable star

Spoken like a true realist. — Harry Hindu

No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.
I'm not a true anything. As noted in the post, my personal philosophy is BothAnd. As a relative Realist, I accept the evidence of my eyes as plausible facts, upon which to build my personal model of Reality. But as an amateur philosopher, I also accept that vetted ideas are also useful bricks for my model. Your mental model of Reality may be different from mine, but on this forum, we can share our biased views, in order to see our differences and our agreements. That is not likely to result in a "true" view of the world. But it's better than being blind in one eye. :cool:


Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Maybe some naive realists assume that, but sensible realists find the imaginable possibility that the Universe exists independently of humans more plausible than its imaginable antithesis. — Janus

My post was not directed at the independence of human observers from what they are observing, but merely noting that perfect Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. The Objectivity of Science is not a property of any single observer, but of the bias-canceling methodology of Collective Skepticism, which tends to balance extreme views into a mean or average. The Stanford article below makes the same point : Science may be objective, but a particular scientist is still subject to personal bias. :smile:

PS__I won't go into the debatable implications of Quantum Entanglement for the independence of the observer.

SCIENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY :
Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is an objective description of the real structure of the world.
https://www.banglajol.info

Scientific Objectivity :
Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, . . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

"The first principle [of scientific skepticism] is that you must not fool yourself --- and you are the easiest person to fool"
___Richard Feynman, physicist

The importance of perception. Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? Also did the Bishop anticipate the measurement problem in physics? The role of the observer from conceptual art to quantum physics seems alive and well. — Edmund

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. Although, objectivity is the ideal goal of Science, it's an unattainable perfection. Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". And the same goes for inflexible Idealists.

However, even polarized Realism vs Idealism or Objectivism vs Subjectivism philosophical positions are peculiar personalized belief systems. They are not obtained from a privileged universal all-seeing point of view. That's why we have to occasionally purge our erroneous beliefs by comparing them to other partial perspectives, as on this forum. The result will not be Purity, but it may be de-polarized and homogenized. From that broadened perspective, we may be able to see both Matter and Mind. :smile:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Glossary

Homogenized : mixed ; merged ; blended ; synthesized ; unified

I was trying to respond to comments on my post, but it has been removed. Do you know why it was removed? — Ree Zen

Sometimes they move your post to another current thread on the same topic. But they should leave a note to that effect. You are welcome to add your comments to the long-running thread below. But your angle may be different enough to warrant a new thread. :smile:


Free Will and Other Popular Delusions
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/631949

There is a lot about Dawkins’ gene-centred theory that I disagree with. Not least of these disagreements is regarding the oversimplified ‘selfish/altruistic’ binary on which it is based. — Possibility

I suspect that Dawkins' metaphorical anthropomorphic gene quip may have been misinterpreted when taken out of context. He actually had in mind a more technical concept, that might go over the head of a layman. It's much easier to "oversimplify", and portray genes as little demons with their own selfish agenda, mind-controlling their human vessels with gene-propagating urges.

However, Dawkins' "gene-demon theory" may have been intended to imply the materialistic view : that humans do not have Free Will, because their behavior is directed by both internal (genetic) and external (energetic) drives. I won't go into the details here, but my view is that humans are able to avoid robotic or zombie behavior, because, although their freedom of choice is limited, at least they have the power of Free Won't. :smile:

The selfish-gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows: Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

It isn’t our genes that get immortality, then, but the unconsolidated information they contain. — Possibility

Yes. Your reference to "Information" is right down my Enformationism alley. My philosophical worldview is based on the notion that Causal Information is more fundamental than Matter & Energy. Hence, Information is the substance of Matter, Energy and Mind. :nerd:

The Golden Rule assumes equality - it shouldn’t need a genetic qualifier. — Possibility

Unfortunately, in practice, many people who agree with that moral mandate, assume it refers to "others like me". That's why sages & preachers & teachers have had to repeat that admonition for every generation, to adapt it to evolving scientific understanding, and to expanding cultural inclusiveness. High-minded abstract Ethics requires a conscious decision to overrule your visceral Genetic inclination (Free Won't). :cool:

Now I haven't read up on ecological relative regulation you alluded to. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe that is another model that we could discuss. — Caldwell

Sorry. I wasn't familiar with the technical term "absolute emission". It sounded like "no regulation -- emit all the pollution you want". So, my tongue-in-cheek response was to tone it down to "relative ecological emission regulations". It's not an existing method of regulation, but merely an admonition for moderation in both "emission of pollution' and "regulation of emission". Since I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll back-off now. :joke:

In that case, let's shoot for absolute emission then, — Caldwell

Let's not give-up on Economic or Ecological relative regulation. Natural systems are inherently self-regulating by deterministic Genetics. But in human Cultural systems, FreeWill throws a monkey wrench in the gears. That's why cannibalistic humans would quickly go extinct in a dog-eat-dog world, without Social Contract laws, regulated by self-determining Reason. :joke:

PS___Let's not debate Freedom from Determinism here. That's a topic for another thread.

It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects — Gregory

I was not familiar with Nominalism, beyond the meaning of the Latin (name), so I Googled it. And the first impression I got was : Nominalism means that Philosophy a waste of time. However, the definition below could also be interpreted as merely an attempt to avoid Reification of abstractions. The existential significance of abstract concepts is not in objects themselves but in logical relationships between things. They don't exist "in the same way". The model is not the real thing.

However, the way you expressed it above sounds like : "if you can't put a number on it, it doesn't exist". But that's the whole point of the Qualia versus Quanta and Real versus Ideal debates. In my posts on this forum, I refer both to Empirical material objects and to Theoretical immaterial ideas. But, to confuse one with the other is the Reification Fallacy. I guess you could say that I take a Nominalist or a Realist perspective as appropriate to the context.

To take a hard position on the Quantitative side seems to eliminate much of what philosophy is about : Wisdom, Truth, Ethics, Meaning, and Value. All of those are General Concepts, and None is a nominal thing. So, in order to do philosophy, you'd have to treat them as Symbols or Metaphors or Maps pointing to aspects of Reality that "exist" only in Minds. Even so, we can Name them, if not Number them.

We even give names to abstract numbers as-if they are specific things. Consequently, instead taking a stand on the Individual or Universal bank of the river, I simply try to remember not to confuse "as-if" with "as-is". Because that ambiguity is at the root of many vehement debates about the meanings of our words. Is "being honest" an individual object? :chin:

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material.
Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.
https://gohighbrow.com/problem-of-universals-realism-vs-nominalism/

Reism is the doctrine that only things exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reism/

Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

there is no thing they are sharing between them — Gregory

A Pattern is not a singular thing, but an array of things with something shared in common. That shared structure is not a physical connection (thing), but a meaningful relationship. Human Reason is a Pattern Recognition function that "sees" the whole -- connects the dots -- in a random collection of parts. AI computers are only beginning to scratch the surface of that talent for dealing with Holistic concepts (groups ; categories) as-if they are nominal things, with which a computer can simulate human reasoning. :nerd:

Pattern recognition is used to give human recognition intelligence to machines that are required in image processing.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/pattern-recognition-introduction/

MEANING IS IN THE INVISIBLE RELATIONSHIPS NOT THE THINGS

As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. — Gregory

Nominalism gives names to swarms of things that seem to cohere as a whole, but the swarm itself is not real. It's an imaginary singularity, that consists of multiple parts. As Juliet said about family labels : “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. She notes that the nominal label is not real either. A name is no more real than an abstract number (nominal). Ultimately, the metaphysical essence (Soul) of Romeo, was what she loved. The whole singular Self is what was meaningful to her, not the myriad cells that stick together into the shape she identified (labeled) as Romeo. The un-quantifiable Qualia of a rose or lover is not in the nominal protoplasm, but in its menta-physical wholeness. :joke:

From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body. — Gregory

True. Materialism cannot see metaphysical mental concepts, so it gives a label to the absence of matter, to represent the meaning of no-thing. However, when we give names to non-things, such as consciousness, we still treat them as-if they are real things. Although, for philosophical purposes, we put warning labels on non-things, to remind us that our "identify" is nothing, hence not important. And yet, we seem to enjoy the sweet smells (Oualia) of the Mind, even though there's nothing there but a lump of raw meat.

So, the ethereal "Mind", by the materialistic name of "Brain", still forms the essence of Self that we identify ourselves with. You don't identify with your slimy Brain, or any other part of your body. Your "Self", is the whole system of Quanta & Qualia which cohere as an identifiable mass of matter, that allows us to locate and identify "Gregory" in the real world. You are not a multiplicity of quantifiable things, but a conceptual qualitative Unity (Soul or Self). :cool:

A soul, Aristotle says, is “the actuality of a body that has life,” where life means the capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction. If one regards a living substance as a composite of matter and form, then the soul is the form of a natural—or, as Aristotle sometimes says, organic—body.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Philosophy-of-mind
Note -- a Composite is a conceptual whole, not a real thing. Life is not a real thing, but a conceptual label for a biological process.

Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions,
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

REAL BIRDS


IMAGINARY SWARM or is it a whale?

So, maybe it's an assumption that the market will take care of itself, and thermodynamics, in conclusion gets taken care of? — Caldwell

Interpersonal Market Economics, by contrast to Top-down Government Planning, is like Democracy : it assumes that erroneous or extreme ideas (irrational elements) will neutralize or normalize each other. And, as Winston Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

Monetary Economics is not a logical physical system, like Thermodynamics; it's a passionate Prey versus Predator ecosystem that sometimes gets out of balance due to selfish human interference. Fortunately, some altruistic humans are working to offset the imbalance by providing a targeted counter-force (e.g. reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone). But even that well-intentioned response may be based on incomplete information about the state & trend of the system. So, we may have to just get used to an imperfect & erratic Economy & Ecology, until Economists become omniscient, or Human monetary interactions become more predictable and controllable, like Physical energy exchanges. :cool:


“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” This quotation is used to illustrate the self-centeredness of men and thereby to motivate the market as the best allocation mechanism.
___Adam Smith
https://faces-online.nl/en/the-godfather-of-economics-adam-smith-in-five-quotes/

How does this relate to Kant’s model of time? — Joshs

I wasn't familiar with Kant's opinion of Time. But a quick Google indicates that his Critique of Pure Reason ("which is a combination of rationalism and empiricism") treats Time & Change, not as objectively Real, but as subjectively Ideal. We imagine time by Intuition or infer it by Reason, because we can't see it with our objective empirical senses. So, we impute Time to Reality. And that's essentially what I was saying. :smile:

Kant believes that time, for us, is intuitive
https://decodedpast.com/immanuel-kant-on-time-a-theory-from-the-heart/

Impute : to represent something as being done, caused, or possessed by someone; to attribute.

From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality — Gregory

That's not how I understand Aristotle. Compared to many modern philosophers, who make long tangled (metaphorical + material) arguments about Reality, or our Conception of it, Ari tended to get down to "brass tacks". To avoid Plato's imaginary eternal ideal "Forms" -- that have a ghostly existence outside of Reality -- Ari placed his conceptual "form" within each physical object. But he still couldn't completely do away with the fact that Form, or Order, or Structure is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. So yes, his "form" was in his head (morph), not in the material thing (hyle).

My interpretation of Hylemorphism (matter + mind) is that Reality is what our physical senses Perceive, and Ideality (the world of ideas) is what our minds Conceive. Objective Percepts are empirically verifiable; but subjective Concepts are always debatable. So, Aristotle reluctantly gave a dual definition of the world. Since the emergence of rational homo sapiens, It's both Real and Ideal, both Concrete and Abstract, both Sensory and Imaginary. :cool:

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas. They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of the concept behind principles, thoughts and beliefs.
___Wiki
Note -- Abstractions remove the flesh (matter) from the skeleton (structural relationships = form)

PS___I think your inference is correct, that Aristotle couldn't avoid making essentially the same distinction as Plato, between the Real material world, and the Ideal human model of the world. However, he was not denying the Real world, but merely admitting-into-evidence the Ideal concepts by which we communicate about the world. To eliminate Ideality, you would have to eliminate Humanity.

PPS___Quantum theory has pulled the foundational rug out from under Materialism. It has replaced physical Atoms of hard stuff with mathematical Fields of relationships, that can only be Conceived, not Perceived

So, the pre-inflationary Planck cell can be compared with Aristotle's objective unmoved mover and the perfect circular motion. Our friend was ahead of his "time"! — Raymond

Yes. As in so many other philosophical quandaries, Aristotle tried to dispel mysteries -- such as Plato's "Forms" -- with practical applications. For example, a designing engineer envisions the "structure" of a future building, not as concrete beams & columns, but as abstract relationships, represented by vectors (arrows & values)

By defining Time as our perception of the sequential structure of evolving reality (order),he focused on what we are measuring : non-spatial relationships that evolve in an orderly mathematical manner. Those relationships are what I call "Information", a mental geometry, by which we measure the differences (or ratios) between Instants or Instances in terms of Meaning or Value to Self. We perceive those non-spatial ratios by Reason (rational thinking). :nerd:

Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent on change. . . . this means that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, that it is a kind of measure)
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199247900.001.0001/acprof-9780199247905
Note -- we don't perceive Change itself, but the difference between point A and point B in a sequence --- like frames in a movie.

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

MENTAL GEOMETRY OF ABSTRACT VECTORS

I think there are two kinds of times, mutually exclusive. — Raymond

Regarding the "mystery" of Time, here's a link to an article with a unique concept of "why time flies". Apparently Time is Relative, not just to Space, and personal experience, but to our empathic connection to other time voyagers. :smile:


Empathy Is a Clock That Ticks in the Consciousness of Another :
. . . Kierkegaard’s assertion that “the moment is not properly an atom of time but an atom of eternity.” Time is a social phenomenon. This property is not incidental to time; it is its essence.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/09/04/alan-burdick-why-time-flies-empathy/

I think there are two kinds of times, mutually exclusive. Entropic time and perfect clock time. — Raymond

Yes. There are various ways of measuring the passage or static-state of Time. Entropy measures the dissipation of Potential Time from the beginning of the downhill stream. Clock time measures Time as a metaphorical flow, like a river. Block Time measures Time's dimensions as-if the fluid is frozen into a block of ice. And Space-Time imagines emptiness as-if it's a solid object. But all of those "measurements" are attempts to reify an abstraction via metaphorical pointers to physical things. We don't know Time via our physical senses, but only with our sixth sense of Reason, which relates one thing or state to another. Time is not Real, but Ideal, a metaphor in the mind, not a flowing river or immobile ice-cube out there. There's probably no "perfect" way to measure a shape-shifting ghost. :nerd:

How can time cause change? — Raymond

Metaphorically. :joke:

↪Gnomon
Not sure how you’ve managed to focus on words in what I’ve written that are tangential to the points I was trying to make... I assume you’re attempting to be agreeable. — Possibility

I apologize, if I missed your point. But in the quotation, "striving" was separated from "beyond ourselves". So, apparently you are talking about "Altruism" instead of "Ambition". That un-selfish attitude requires concern or love for others, which tends to be reserved for only those close to Self : "my family", our kind", "our species". Ironically, some humans seem to love their pets more than people.

Anyway, I agree with what you were saying. Since we are supposedly motivated by our "selfish genes", we have to make a conscious choice to extend our self-protective inclinations to those who don't share our genes. That's why almost all religions & philosophies preach Altruism. Perhaps you would amend the Golden Rule to "do unto others (even those with different genes) . . ." :cool:

In many ways I agree with your essay on principle (although I cringe at the metaphorical language and personified deity). — Possibility

I assume you are referring to the Intelligent Evolution essay. But, I deliberately tried to avoid personalizing the First Cause as a typical super-human. Instead, I sometimes refer to that abstract philosophical principle as "G*D", to indicate that, although it created (enformed) the universe, it's not what most people imagine as a Feudal Lord in the heavenly castle.

My notion is closer to TAO, or LOGOS, as the ordering & enforming force in Nature. The essay has a Glossary that defines my unconventional understanding of what my information-based thesis calls "The Enformer". It's derived from the cutting-edge scientific postulation that "Generic Information" is the single substance (matter) & causal agency (energy) of the world. Since that Prime Mover is necessarily prior to the Big Bang, it is literally super-natural, and can only be imagined in terms of metaphors pointing to familiar things in the Real World. :starstruck:

G*D :
A generic name for the origin and ground of
all being. ~ The First Cause of all physical
existence. The Prime Mover who started the
cause & effect process of evolution. The Crea-
tor of the universe. ~ G*D is super-natural, in
the sense that nature is a sub-category of G*D.
G*D is the whole of which the universe is a
part. . . . .

I’ve never really settled on a position in a pessimistic-optimistic binary - if you’re looking to stick me with a label, then I’m afraid you’ll be regularly confused. — Possibility

That's OK. I sometimes label myself as a "Peptomist" : optimistic despite all the reasons to be pessimistic. Also, my personal philosophy is labeled as "BothAnd". :joke:

And by ‘true direction’, I’m not talking about positive-negative or upward-downward. — Possibility

Unfortunately, we can only communicate abstract Qualia in terms of concrete metaphors, such as directional arrows pointing up or down. When my evolution chart shows a hockey-stick up-turn, it's intended to illustrate both Quantitative increase and Qualitative progress. I don't know what the hypothetical Omega Point will be, but the assumption is that it will be better, in some sense, than the current or past state of the universe. That qualitative judgment may not be apparent to those of us at a single point in space-time. But I'm hoping the qualitatively-improved state would be knowable from a Holistic perspective, as-if from an objective Eye-in-the-Sky. :nerd:

From Plato to Einstein, time has been thought of by many. Everyone knows what time is. That's why I wonder what the big mystery is. — Raymond

Actually, "Time" is like Energy. Intuitively,everybody knows what it does, but the mystery arises when you ask what it is. For scientific purposes, a thing is its substance (material). But for philosophical inquiries a process is what it causes. Like Energy, Time causes Change. But then you'll have to define that term. In the 20th century, Time was defined as the fourth dimension : a way to measure Change. But that still didn't answer what it is. So, to avoid further debate, they agreed on a metaphorical definition : Block Time. Which is equivalent to the ancient philosophical notion of unchanging Eternity. But that is not an answer to what Time consists of. So the mystery remains. Since there are so many partial definitions of Time, perhaps the best policy is : "don't worry about it, it is what it is". :joke:

BTW, what do you think it is?

PS___In my thesis, there's one tantalizing hint to what Time is : Difference. "The difference that makes a difference" is what we know as Meaning.

It’s not about identifying whose perspective, but about striving

beyond ourselves. — Possibility

Yes. Ambition is one human trait that distinguishes the species from "lower" animals. But that "striving" sometimes results in humanity running roughshod over the placid sheep, So, the key to reigning-in our aspirations is the philosophical motto of "Moderation in all things". Strive to better yourself, but not at the expense of others. :pray:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning

It is when we pay attention to the qualitative relations of statistical anomalies that we begin to understand the true direction of the cosmos. — Possibility

Hmmm. Is that "true direction" sloping upward or downward? If by "qualitative relations" you mean Ethics or Morality, I am encouraged by Steven Pinker's analysis of history -- The Better Angels of Our Nature -- which concluded that, in certain ways, humanity has been improving its collective morality. :halo:

Moral vs Technological Progress :
Several recent science-oriented magazines have had cover articles on topics such as : The War on Science and Knowledge, Anti-Intellectualism in Today's America [SI Mar/Apr2018]. One culprit in this rejection of Enlightenment values is the Post-modern philosophy, which views history, not as the hopeful record of an upward trend in human development, but as the grim story of an eternal power struggle between Us-vs-Them, Haves-vs-Have-nots, Elites-vs-Commoners, and various other polarized interest groups. Ironically, this atheistic, anti-modern, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-progressive movement has some parallels with the goals of Fundamentalist Christians & Muslims. It shares with those theistic religions their dualistic worldview of an ongoing power struggle between Good vs Evil forces. So, it seems that moderate freethinkers may be caught in the crossfire between the Antis on left & right. . . . . Steven Pinker, probably motivated in part by this pessimistic trend in academic & religious circles, has contributed a plethora of reasonable & plausible evidence for a more optimistic outlook.
BothAnd Blog, post 24

This is where our science has steered us wrong, describing natural evolution as random, unintelligent and impersonal - in deliberate contrast to how we have described ourselves and all that we create. — Possibility

I agree. The Enformationism thesis provides an alternative to the dystopian vision of some interpreters of the scientific portrayal of the evolving world as "random, unintelligent, and impersonal". My own essay on the topic is Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth. Note -- the essay should not be confused with religious "Intelligent Creation" theories. :cool:

Well, that’s not how I interpret the myth at all. The idea, as I see it, was that A&E were supposed to understand how the garden worked in harmony before calling the shots — Possibility

Some Christians also interpret the myth in an idyllic manner. The pedantic point, however, was to show how the world had declined from that enlightened beginning, when Lions were vegetarians, due to A&E's disobedience to divine will. Latter day myths of The Fall are not concerned with gods, but with humanity's disregard for the laws of Nature. In Myths to Live By, Joseph Campbell advised us not to take those legends literally, but as metaphors to guide our moral behavior. So, if you read the Garden myth as a model of hippie harmony, that's OK. Peace & love! :love:

Well, I see language, information and the universe all as evolving from an ignorant, isolated and exclusive base towards greater awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Hey! That sounds more optimistic than some of your earlier remarks. Well done! :up:

I think the curve between 300YA and now is not faithful. When life has evolved to the form of life we see nowadays, enformation seems pretty constant untill the Sun blows up 5 BY from now. Enformation seems to have decreased exponentially the last 300 years, instead of increased. When the Sun blows up all enformation on Earth will be dead and gone and enformation will even become impossible if all matter has turned into pure energy in the far future. So the red curve will go to zero then. — Raymond

OK. You can draw your own hypothetical curve. But mine covers billions of years, and the minor ups & downs are not apparent at this scale. Note that the chart says "not to scale". It would be the length of a football field if drawn to scale with human emergence (and incidentally Language) on the scene.

Besides, according to optimistic futurists and sci-fi writers, by the time the sun turns red and expands to the orbit of Earth, humans or cyborgs or androids will already be inhabiting distant worlds. If so, the upward beat of progress goes on & on. "To the future, and beyond", to quote Buzz Lightyear. :smile:

Exponential Growth of Information Technology :
https://www.gregschool.org/gregschoollessons/2017/3/14/exponential-growth-of-information-technology-1-hkykf

BTW -- you may have missed my meaning of "Enformation" (EnFormAction). It's equivalent to causal Energy. Which is expected to gradually dissipate into total Entropy in the era of "heat death". But I can't foresee that far ahead. The chart assumes we will reach the "Omega Point", whatever that might be, long before all suns go dark. :cool: