This metaphor of Homo sapiens as a ‘wild card’ is from the perspective of... Homo sapiens. — Possibility

You say that as-if the "perspective" of human observers is a bad thing. From whose perspective would you expect a more objective understanding? Would the opinion of canis familiaris provide a more accurate overview of human predictability. Humans have made a science -- Economics (the "dismal science') -- of trying to predict human behavior individually & collectively. Yet, even though the future path of social groups may track closer to the "normal" Bell Curve of statistics, prognosticators must always be alert for Black Swans, that knock the best laid predictions of mice & men off track. :joke:

The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable :
2. Fat Tails -- In economics, a Bell Curve probability distribution that indicates a high level of potential Black Swan risk by the unusual graphical thickness of its extreme ends, which are normally skinny. It’s the unpredictability of such blind-side hits that makes it scary.
BothAnd Blog, post 69

My objection here is not to emergence or to ‘freedom within determinism’, but to the idea that humanity ‘added’ this free will to an existing determinism. — Possibility

Yes, I appreciate your skepticism about the power of human nature to "change the direction of " evolution. Yet, that's exactly what the graphic is intended to illustrate. Of course, some historians are pessimistic about the deductive downward direction of human influence. But others, especially historians of the future, are more sanguine about the positive contribution of human intelligence. Many of us are depressed by apocalyptic & dystopian movies, and alarmed by the scary gossip & "fake news" in popular media, not to mention the "signs & omens" of self-professed prophets. But sober observers of humanity tend to discount such extremist alarmism, and focus on the mundane facts, both pro & con, that tend to track right down the moderate middle, with maybe a hint of positive direction (additional velocity?).

The opinion that humanity is "destroying nature" is also a human perspective. But, I think we need to give "us" the benefit of the doubt. After all, homo sapiens are late-bloomers on the evolutionary scene. And, we only have a few years of recorded civilized history, compared to billions of years of un-intelligent (random) "natural" (wild) evolution. In that relatively short span, humans have indeed gone counter to the "wisdom" of impersonal Nature, in order to adapt their habitat to their selfish "hierarchy of needs". that go beyond Physiology (food & procreation) and Safety (survival long enough to procreate), to include such special needs as Love & Esteem (sex + the need to be needed), and Self-Actualization (to go beyond their animal nature). Moreover, part of self-actualization is the accumulation of wisdom by learning from our mistakes. Another aspect of human actualization may be to avoid the extinction of the species, by taking partial control of the de-selection function of evolution.

The myth of Genesis indicated that the purpose of humans was to be caretakers of the Garden. But, Adam & Eve were not content just to trim the hedges & clean-up the poop. They wanted to be the landscapers & designers of their garden. As the human population grew, in response to the divine commandment, or innate urge, to be fruitful, they were forced to expand the human domain into formerly wild territory. So, the question is : did God/Mother-Nature intend for people to be merely bipedal animals with hands to clip the bushes and scoop the poop? Or was the extra intelligence supposed to be put to use as co-creators of their world? If A & E had bowed to pressure from above, not to live up to their Potential (to explore Possibilities), then maybe we would still be living in caves, with smokey fires, and wearing scratchy skins or fig leaves. :nerd:

Humanity Is About to Transition To “Evolution by Intelligent Direction” :
https://futurism.com/humanity-is-about-to-transition-to-evolution-by-intelligent-direction

A perception of directional change assumes a conflict between our needs and those of the rest of the earth. — Possibility

I get where you''re coming from. But my focus in this thread is on the linguistic metaphor of the OP. I see language as evolving upward from grunts & gestures to poems & programs, not to mention creative profanity. And I perceive (or conceive) a pattern of raw Information evolving into the power of human imagination & intention. So, if you know how to weed-out the mis-information & mis-interpretations & mis-applications that threaten to make us miss the opportunities of our Potential, feel free to go ahead and add critical thinking & error-correction to our cave-man nature. But that may be a topic for another thread. :cool:

Anyway, I wanna run something by you. What if we represent all analyzed data as pictures/images. This may help us see patterns more easily, yes? — Agent Smith

Yes. Words typically convey only conventional ideas that are already in the vocabulary, That's why creative writers like to use metaphorical language to suggest a shade of meaning that is not in the dictionary definition of the words.

For the same reason, philosophical discussions require a lot of defining of terms, to make sure we are talking about the same thing. But since philosophy is mostly concerned with generalities or abstractions that are difficult to pin down, a graphic picture is worth a thousand simplified symbols. It allows the viewer to see for herself the various patterns of relationships implicit in the verbal description. :smile:

Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too — Gregory

No. I was not familiar with Freke. But a quick Google indicates that his specialty is Gnosticism and Christian Mysticism. There are some incidental similarities between Gnosticism and my own worldview. But I don't think of it as Mysticism. There are also coincidental similarities with many of the major religious traditions, including the notion of Panpsychism and Pantheism. But, in my blog I try to make it clear that I am not mimicking any spiritual or mystical or theological beliefs.

My thesis began from two branches of modern Science : Quantum Theory & Information Theory. Both were pointing in the direction of Mind or Consciousness as the underlying essence of the material world as known via our senses. And that just happens to coincide with some ancient guesses about Soul & Spirit. For example, Aristotle's De Anima ( On The Soul) postulated that everything in the world is a composite of FORM (morph ; ousia) and MATTER (hyle), which is now known as Hylemorphism. Ari claimed that those two parts are inseparable aspects of a whole entity. Hence, when the body dies, the soul is extinguished : metaphorically, the pattern evaporates. The structure of the whole system collapses. That's Dualism within Monism.

Aristotle is commonly labeled as a Materialist, in contrast to Plato as an Idealist. But his notion of "Form" is equivalent to the immaterial design or pattern that the rational mind infers from observation of material objects. Those patterns are not visible to the senses, except to the sixth sense of Reason : which is the pattern-seeker, the information-knower, that allows humans discover the invisible laws of Nature. So, my "soul story" goes back beyond Gnosticism to the origins of Formal Philosophy. :nerd:

Note -- Christians who didn't like Freke's Gnosticism will not like my own Enformationism, because it doesn't pay homage to any particular canon of scriptures. Ken Wilbur's writings also bear some similarities to my worldview, but there are also differences.

Structure :
1. the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. to construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.
Note -- the essential structure of a thing is its Form, or Pattern or Inter-relations ; its EnFormAtion

De Anima :
His principal work in psychology, De Anima, reflects in different ways his pervasive interest in biological taxonomy and his most sophisticated physical and metaphysical theory. . . . . “the phenomena common to soul and body” . . . .‘Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally describe Aristotle’s view of body and soul as an instance of his “matter-formism.” That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/

You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness — Gregory

Yes. I have mentioned my understanding of the First Cause as possessing the Potential for all emergent properties of the evolving world, including Consciousness. However, I don't mean that the FC was or is conscious in the same sense as humans. I have no way of knowing about that. But, if our world has the property of Awareness, logically the original Cause must have the power to cause it to emerge at the proper time. An old saying is "there's nothing in the Effect, that was not already in the Cause -- as potential. :smile:


What is Law? : Limitations on action; rules governing creation; embodied Intention; imposed Will.
BothAnd Blog post 14
in the context of Big Bang Theory

I would argue that’s not speaking metaphorically, but ambiguously. Metaphor has a specific qualitative relation as well as a variable. Either it emerged (in which case it didn’t ‘change the direction of evolution’ but rather followed it) or it was ‘added’ by humans. I’m also curious as to the source of your definition of ‘emergence’: the first I’ve seen and the second I understand, but the third seems a contrivance. ‘More than’ and ‘in addition to’ are not the same in relation to emergence. — Possibility

The metaphor in my post was to compare homo sapiens to a "wild card". If you're not familiar with that Poker jargon, I give the pertinent definition below. Hopefully, that will remove some of the "ambiguity". The intended implication was that humanity added a bit of FreeWill into evolutionary Determinism. If we disagree about what I call "Freedom within Determinism", there's an ongoing thread on that topic. I also have several blog posts to define, in no uncertain terms, how I arrived at that notion. If that doesn't convince you, all I can say is "different words for different nerds".

Regarding "Emergence", I used that term in the sense of Holism, in which new properties are "added" to the system that were not expressed before in the parts. However, in my view, the Potential for those new expressions were in the evolutionary "program" from the beginning. But the Holistic novelties only emerge when certain pre-conditions have already been established. In other words, Humanity, with language & freewill, didn't just appear by magic. So, if my usage of the term is a "contrivance", perhaps you should make an edit to the Wiki definition.

If you don't agree that the Emergence of humanity "changed the direction of evolution", we may just have to agree to disagree. It's just my personal opinion. FWIW, the graph below illustrates the acceleration of evolution (mostly technological) after the emergence of Life & Mind & Civilization. It looks like a hockey stick for the same reason Climate Change did : selfish human choices have "homo-formed" (that's a play on "terra-formed) Earth to suit the needs of "featherless bipeds". :cool:


Wild Card : "a person or thing whose influence is unpredictable or whose qualities are uncertain."
___Oxford Languages

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.
Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/632281

COSMIC PROGRESSION GRAPH

Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality — Gregory

As implied in my billiards illustration, the first cause of ball motion was not the cue ball or the stick (material substances), but the aiming & intention of the shooter's mind. The Contingency of the original Cause is the decision to strike or not, and the choice of goal or direction. No strike, no chain of causation, and no balls in the pockets, and no physical world for us to wonder about.

Aristotle defined the First Cause of all actions in the world as the "unmoved mover". In modern terms we define that "Prime Mover" as a mathematical Singularity. Some think of that speck-in-space as a substance, but it would have to compress all the matter of the universe into the equivalent of a Planck Mass. The word "singularity" also implies unity or wholeness : having no parts or divisions. No substance, just Form (design ; plan ; program).

So the Big Bang is what would happen if that infinite Potential, packed into a infinitesimal volume, suddenly exploded like the chain reaction in an atomic bomb. Fortunately for us, the sequence of events following the Bang was not exactly a "free fall", but was governed by Natural Laws, and regulated by Natural Selection. That's what I mean by deciding which direction to aim at.

Since, at the point of Singularity, all physical values go back to infinity or zero, there is no room for matter, or any other kind of substance. Only immaterial Intention, or Aim, or Design could be packed into nothingness, like the immaterial Information of a computer program. :smile:

Singularity :
A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/singularity
Note : this is where space & time goes off-the-charts, and disappears from the physicist's radar. In effect, there is no space-time prior to the First Cause. A Bit of Information is not a physical thing, but a mathematical "difference" -- a ratio, a value.

Infinitesimal : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.

Planck Mass :
The Planck length is the smallest distance. The Planck time is the smallest time. The Planck mass is the geometric mean of all masses in universe.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Planck-time-Planck-length-and-Planck-mass

Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories"). — 180 Proof

You accuse me of "sophistry" whenever I make philosophical arguments instead of providing conventional scientific facts to prove my point. You also portray me as a Mystic, because I talk a lot about Meta-Physics instead of Physics. As I have noted before, if this was a Physics forum, your imputation might have merit. But since we are dialoging on The Philosophy Forum, your assertions miss their mark. And they seem more like "Sophistry" (rhetoric of persuasion focused on winning arguments instead of converging on Truth). So, there. I can lob labels too. But name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

PS__Are you expecting me to give-up and say "uncle"? Labels & Liables may tar my reputation, but they will never break my "spirit". :wink:

Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy

Other than our intuition, what's to say actual no-thingness didn't give rise to everything else? Bear in mind, something having an infinite past is absurd too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Such distractions about abstractions can go-on into the infinity before infinity -- if we don't put up an arbitrary barrier to eternal extrapolation. One way to do that is to narrowly define the subject of discussion. So, what is this "no-thing-ness" we are imagining for the sake of argument? Typically, the term refers to the concept of a vacuum or absence of physical objects. But we humans tend to think of imaginary non-physical concepts as-if they are things. Does Absence count?

Should we include ethereal Feelings and Qualia in the category of things-in-absentia? The "Future" does not exist in any physical sense, but we speak & act as-if it's a real thing. Plato insisted that his abstract Forms "gave rise" to concrete Reality, even though they were merely abstract designs for potential things. As mentioned above, the notion of "Zero" seemed absurd to the Greek philosophers. Yet today, we use those "far-fetched" symbols of nothingness (00000) as-if they are countable objects.

So, perhaps we need to distinguish between actual physical "things" and imaginary metaphorical "things", in order to abbreviate this thread. Does "Absence" exist in any meaningful sense? If not, this may be merely an excursion into mundane somethingness. If so, we may be talking about "Constitutive Absence". :smile:

Absence :
It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
Re : Terrence Deacon : Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe — Gregory

There are two basic meanings of "to prove" : 1. by evidence or 2. by argument. Scientists prove the existence of invisible physical objects, like neutrinos, by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as wispy trails left behind in a cloud chamber by unseen motes of matter. Philosophers prove the "existence" of metaphysical concepts, like Qualia, by logical syllogisms, derived from observations of behavior, or from intuitive axioms.

We cannot scientifically prove anything "external to the physical universe", such as Metaverses, Parallel Worlds, or a pre-bang magical Inflationary Instant. Those are imaginary or hypothetical, abstract mathematical extrapolations from known characteristics of the sensible aspects of Nature. That's because, unlike animals, humans can imagine things that do not exist in this place & time -- that are not Real, but Ideal. And philosophers, especially, specialize to hypothesize about unseen (hyper-sensory) things that are preter-natural. For example, the Greek theory of minuscule Atoms, was not a scientific observation, but a seemingly logical necessity to explain the physical objects we can see & touch. And intelligent people believed in such unseen things for several thousand years, based on inference, not evidence.

In a similar manner, some ancient & modern philosophers have deduced the logical necessity for a First Cause (or Creator) that exists external to the Effect or Creation. It's simply a matter of mental framing. If you look closely at a billiard table, you will see balls of hard stuff, moving around and interacting, as-if they had a mission. But only if you widen your scope to look external to the table, will you see the original Cause of that seemingly deliberate behavior : a pool shooter, with the intention of moving those balls into pockets without actually touching them.

"Potential" and "Contingency" are concepts, not real here & now things. They are rational inferences from many observations over extended time. All we can say is that such Qualia must exist in some sense, if we are to make sense of the dynamic world around us. Is that proof enough for you . . . as a philosopher? :nerd:

Neutrino :
The neutrino is perhaps the best-named particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: it is tiny, neutral, and weighs so little that no one has been able to measure its mass. . . . . Theorists predicted the neutrino’s existence in 1930, but it took experimenters 26 years to discover the particle.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutrinos

Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

To infer : to form an opinion from physical or logical premises

THE WORLD OF BILLIARD BALLS ON A MISSION


THE SPOOKY OFF-WORLD CAUSE OF ENTERPRISING BALLS

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Since we are only familiar with being, non-existence is counter-intuitive. So, it's easier for us to imagine NOW extending into the Past and Future with no boundaries. But intuition tends to be prejudiced by personal experience.

The ancient Greeks were excellent mathematicians, but they had no concept of "Zero" (nothingness). Yet in more recent times, that non-intuitive notion has proven to be quite useful in abstract mathematics. Consequently, as hypothetical philosophical postulations, we are now more comfortable with such literal non-sense, even though it has no counterpart in physical Reality. That's why "Zero" and "Infinity" are meta-physical philosophical speculations, not physical scientific facts. And philosophical thinkers have been known to fetch some of their most exotic ideas from afar-far-away. :nerd:

incidentally, contrary to Gnomon’s view, I don’t see humanity or personal opinion as some ‘addition’ to the natural process of the universe. — Possibility

Sorry Poss. You seem to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about Gnomon's "view". I was speaking metaphorically when I said, "homo sapiens . . . added a wild card . . . to Logic & Math". Actually, the potential (possibility) for that personal perspective must have been lain dormant in the logical structure of reality (Logos) for billions of years. But that latent "wild card" only became Actual when the human brain began to include self-referential feedback loops in the ongoing linear Logic of reality, resulting in what I call "Ideality" : a novel feature in the meaningless pre-human Cosmos.

That statistical anomaly (Linguistic Logic ; math with meaning) has abruptly changed the direction of evolution, to serve the personal interests, emotions, & opinions of a self-reflective species of upright apes. It has produced a new "tool" (formal conventional Language) with logical leverage to produce Qualia, where before there was only Quanta. Language is an Objective form of Subjective thought. And it has allowed cooperative communication that is more flexible, and generalizable, than the proto-language of hormones & pheromones. So "humanity or personal opinion" was an "addition" to natural processes only in the sense of Emergence. :wink:


Emergence :
1. the process of coming into view or becoming exposed after being concealed.
2. potential properties in parts of a system that are only expressed in their holistic interrelationships
3. the whole is "more than" (in addition to) the sum of its parts

Logos :
Greek term meaning “word”, “reason”, “proportion”. It was used by philosophers in a technical sense to mean a cosmic principle of order and knowledge. In ancient Greek philosophy and theology, Logos was the divine Reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about — Gregory

True. Philosophy is about Ideas, while Physics is about "real" things. The original hypothetical concept of a modern Atom was a miniature solar system. Then it was portrayed as a tiny cloud of electrical potential. Now, that foggy fuzz (virtual particle) is imagined as an empty place in space (abstract field) where electro-magnetic events may or may not happen. But, regardless of the philosophical postulations, scientists continue to manipulate things they can't see, for practical purposes. It's like the concept of Energy, no one knows what it is, but only what it does. Theorists are shooting in the dark, while empiricists are making the darkness jump through hoops. :nerd:


The term “atom” was coined in ancient Greece and gave rise to the school of thought known as “atomism”. However, this theory was more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/

I agree that the physical field is real . . . What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea — Gregory

May I suggest that the imaginary mathematical fields of Physics represent an invisible Ideality underlying Reality. The fields themselves are abstract & ideal, definitions with no actual physical properties, only mathematical values. Yet physicists treat them as-if the models are real --- as-if the map is the terrain. :smile:

PS___Mathematics is itself an abstraction of reality, minus all the physical stuff.


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary,

Here's a magnified photo of a single atom. How would you describe it in words?

There's a problem that is not part of the economist's calculation. They need to talk to a physicist. — Banno

I vaguely remember from long ago an economics book (New World of Economics, 1975 ???) that recommended an approach more like Physics. But the problem with such a model is that physical systems are better-behaved and more predictable than chaotic human groups. In fact, I suspect that some economists tried to make models based on physics, and failed to get reliable results. Yet again, their Bell-curve models didn't fit the messy realities of collective and individual human nature.*1

In Freakonomics (2003) the authors said "Why the conventional wisdom is so often wrong . . . How "experts" --- from criminologists to real-estate agents to political scientists --- bend the facts . . . Why knowing what to measure, and how to measure it, is the key to understanding modern life . . . That almost sounds like a reference to physical measurements. But it would actually be more like the meta-physical measurements of Psychology. :joke:

*1. Note to self in front page of the book : "When the numbers (values) are removed from the mathematically derived chart, what is left is a pure logic diagram, showing abstract relationships. From this we can derive general principles which can be applied to specific cases and the numbers plugged back in". So young, so naive. Maybe they hadn't perfected Chaos Theory back then. Or Black Swan theory. :grin:

The assumption of continuity is one the physics undermines - tipping points and phase changes, rather than smooth curves. — Banno

Of course. Short term economic or evolutionary paths tend to look like the first chart below. But Long-term paths typically vary around a fairly constant mean -- maybe even sloping upward, as in chart 2. Although global warming currently looks like a hockey-stick, over 10,000 years the system has balanced itself well enough to keep Life alive. But now, it seems that a little global government intervention/regulation may be necessary to get us back on track. Dystopian visions of economic/thermal/ thermo-nuclear apocalypse may be premature. Have a little faith in humanity -- we haven't bombed ourselves into oblivion yet . . . :cool:

1. SHORT TERM ECONOMICS

2. LONG TERM ECONOMICS

3. GLOBAL WARMING UPS & DOWNS

It can inductively be shown that the universe behaves like a language. On the most basic level, everything in the universe can be said to simply be information (regardless of what the universe is composed of on the higher level). Therefore, the universe can be said to be an arrangement of information. . . . thus providing meaning to all of life and existence — Thinker108

Most of Christopher Langan's CognitiveTheoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is way over my head. But in a brief review on my blog, I noted that it seemed to be mostly compatible with my own Enformationism thesis, which is also Information-Theoretic. Both are Theories of Everything (TOE), including Science, but they are not scientific theories. Instead of empirical evidence, his reasoning is based on Axioms & Tautologies, so it's a philosophical worldview.

Since he assumes that the universe evolves in a logical manner, it can be compared metaphorically to a human language, which must make sense to other humans. And since Logic is a verbal form of mathematical relationships, the logic of language must add-up meaningfully. Unfortunately, the logical structure of language is often blurred with metaphorical figures that are not as exact as numerical figures.

So, I would guess that the universe has evolved in a purely mathematical process of Thermo-dynamic (hot-cold ; positive-negative) relationships. But the advent of homo sapiens -- and their most useful tool, Language -- may have added a wild-card to the Logic & Math : personal opinions. Nevertheless, I have concluded that an understanding of the essential role of Information, in all its forms, can provide some cosmic meaning to Life, Existence, and Everything. :nerd:

CTMU :
It seems to be a philosophical theory derived from current scientific models, but I doubt that it could ever be proven true in any scientific sense.
BothAnd Blog, post 11

Another Theory of Everything :
His proposal falls into the category of Cosmology, or Reality Theory, which examine Nature in its broadest sense, including conjectures on why our world exists at all. They inevitably imply an ultimate fundamental Reality beyond space-time, underlying the superficial parts we can detect with our senses.
BothAnd Blog, post 37

Classical economics breaches the first and second laws of thermodynamics by treating the economy as a closed system that increases in order. — Banno

Classical economic theory also assumed rational individual actors and minimal government interference. Thermodynamics may be logical (rational), but the regulation (natural laws) is inherent in the system. The human factor in economics is a wild card. And, I suppose it's also an irrational element in Earth-based thermodynamics, resulting in global warming. Fortunately for us, over the long haul, the erratic path of both systems, tends to balance-out at a moderate mean. Let's hope, anyway. We don't really want to eradicate humans from the planet, do we? :cool:

I understand metaphysics to be a second (or higher) order categorical, noncognitive, discourse (re: conceptual interpretations) and physics to be a first order hypothetical, cognitive, discourse (re: testable explanatory models). — 180 Proof

I had to Google "noncognitive discourse". It sounds like "subliminal communication". But I don't know how that would work (mental telepathy?).

The article quoted (or "cherry-picked") below is over my head. But it seems to equate "cognitive" with empirical ("predictive") Science, and "noncognitive" with theoretical (speculative) Philosophy (or metaphysics). So, I infer that you would agree with Richard Feynman's dismissal of Philosophical (or metaphysical) interpretations of Quantum Theory : "Shut up and calculate". And that division of labor is OK with me. You can be a "mathematical physicist" calculating predictive facts, and I'll remain in the "unskilled" camp, as a "theoretical" philosopher, speculating on "non-cognitive" meanings.

The notions I discourse about are primarily non-computable, and hence debatable. That's why philosophers are still debating the same hypothetical questions raised by Plato & Aristotle back in the "dark ages" before predictive reductive Science emerged as the technological foundation of modern civilization. And that's also why I post on a Philosophical forum instead of a Physics forum. I only ask that you grant us unpredictable holistic "cherry-pickers" the right to free speech on this marketplace of ideas. Thanks. :smile:


cognitive versus noncognitive :
Under hermeneutics, ‘the application of such honorific’s as “objective” and “cognitive” is never anything more than an expression of the presence of, or the hope for, agreement among inquirers’ (335). It is not another way of knowing, as understanding rather than explanation, but a way of coping. It enables us to give the notion of “cognitive” to predictive science and to stop worrying about the “noncognitive”
https://philosophymasters.wordpress.com/tag/cognitive-versus-noncognitive/

Attributed to Feynman :
Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics?
Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652

I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics. Had I been an ancient / classical thinker, I'd have preferred (e.g.) Epicurus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes of Syracuse, Chrysippus of Soli, Sextus Empiricus ... to (the dogmatic tradition of) Plato-Aristotle, Plotinus et al. — 180 Proof

I apologize, if my tongue-in-cheek remark offended you. Perhaps, I should have said that you seem to prefer Physics to Metaphysics (anti-physics to you). But to me that's the same thing as Philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between his scientific studies of Nature (phusis), and his philosophical analysis & commentary on Nature (including non-physical concepts and theories) by placing them in a separate volume. He didn't give them different names though, "metaphysics" was added later. It was all love-of-wisdom to him.

For Ari, physical studies were merely a small part of the pre-scientific endeavor to understand the world. Today, it's all turned around : physics is the dominant field of study, and philosophy is a minor player in the game of knowing what's what. But, TPF is a philosophy forum, insignificant as it is, so IMHO the focus of our discussions should be on the abstract notions in his second volume. However, the fuzzy margins of Physics, especially on the Quantum scale, are invisible to our physical senses, and knowable only with our non-physical sense of Reason. So those abstract concepts, such as Quarks, are fair game for philosophical critique.

Therefore, when we are discussing fringe theories, there is little empirical evidence to place under the magnifying glass. That may be why several of the pioneers of QT were labeled as "mystics". Their theoretical descriptions of sub-reality did not agree with intuition or classical physics. But the math was so predictive, that empirical physicists decided to stop arguing about the real meaning of the theory, and to "just shut-up and calculate". That way, they can avoid the stain of "mysticism" & "metaphysics". But, I'm not a professional mathematical physicist. And I have no reputation to smear with such labels. So, I feel free to explore the spooky borderlands of the physical world, including the immaterial stuff of the Mind.

As far as I can tell. None of my speculations into the non-physical aspects of the world are "inconsistent with current physics". They merely delve into the darkness on the fringes of physical understanding, where even sober scientists begin to sound a bit mystical. And that's partly because such quantum queerness as Entanglement, are more amenable to the Holistic Eastern traditions, than to the Reductive Western approach. Quantum science sounds so counter-intuitive to Western ears because they expected to find Atoms at the bottom of their dissections. But, as pragmatic "calculators", they were forced to imagine invisible "fields" metaphorically, as-if they are real things.

If you don't mind, I'll continue to consult Plato & Aristotle for philosophical insights. But I refer to modern scientists to support my Information Theoretic philosophy, with empirical evidence, and even some non-empirical hypotheses where the evidence is murky. :cool: .

Do quarks really exist? :
Nope, quarks never exist on their own. The reason is that it takes more energy to separate a pair of quarks than the quarks themselves contain.
https://www.quora.com/Do-quarks-exist-not-just-as-a-useful-mathematical-concept-that-helps-explain-physical-behaviour-but-physically-exist

Quantum mysticism :
Appropriation by New Age thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Note -- my Enformationism worldview is Holistic, but not New Age. It's similar in some ways to those of Deepak Chopra, but far different in others.

What did Einstein say about quantum entanglement? :
Albert Einstein colorfully dismissed quantum entanglement—the ability of separated objects to share a condition or state—as “spooky action at a distance.” Over the past few decades, however, physicists have demonstrated the reality of spooky action over ever greater distances—even from Earth to a satellite in space.
Note -- Albert was right that parted paired particles is "spooky", in the sense of counter-intuitive. But, he was wrong in dismissing it as "mystical", just because it didn't fit his reductive paradigm. The long-distance relationship is real, but not reductive. It's merely Holistic, as in Systems Theory.

Meta-physics :
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" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

PICTURE OF IMAGINARY QUANTUM FIELD


PICTURE OF REAL PHYSICAL FIELD

Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard some Aristotelians say only form exists, others that only organic things have forms, and others that everything has form and prime matter. — Gregory

Yes. Philosophers have varying opinions on almost everything. That's why we dialog : to see if there is some common ground within the wide range of personal beliefs.

People use the term "Form" with either concrete or abstract meanings, but they may not make it clear which is intended. That word may refer to the physical contours of the matter comprising an object. Or, it may indicate the mathematical pattern of relationships that we infer as, that which is common to a category of things. For example, dogs come in many sizes & shapes but there is some underlying similarity between all of them. So, the essence of "dogginess" is not any particular physical shape or shagginess, but a general pattern of interrelated features that our brains interpret as "dog", and not as "cat". I tend to think of that "essential pattern" as abstract, logical & mathematical instead of concrete, perceptual & physical. By rationally inferring that invisible conceptual commonality within variety, we derive meaning from the complexity of apparent reality.

Again, our use of metaphorical language, in poetry or philosophy, often leads to confusion about the intention. When you say "form", are you referring to what you see (perception), or what you infer (conception)? Is "form" the apparent shape & texture, or the implicit pattern of relationships? Form is the middle-name of In-Form-Ation, which is the meaning in a Mind. Plato merely described the concept of a thing metaphorically, as-if it was a perfect eternal essential pattern floating around out in space. But we don't have to take that notion literally, in order to find general meaning in specific things. :smile:


Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

ESSENCE VERSUS APPEARANCE

Try to make a water sculpture. You will see the differences with ice are not that slightly. Ice and stone are more alike than ice and water. — Raymond

Ha! Is the ice-water glass half-empty or half-full? What's the difference? :joke:

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: