The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. — PoeticUniverse

What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? Is it totally bound, hence not able to choose at all. or merely limited in the scope of its choices? Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? Are we like Sisyphus, condemned to rock 'n' roll for ever, but taking some satisfaction that we are playing our pre-defined role in the great scheme of things to the best of our ability? Ironically, king Sisy was like Adam & Eve, punished by the gods for a mutinous attempted act of free choice. Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose?

"Will" is an expression of future tense, so it implies some ability to choose between one apparent path and another. I say "apparent" because our conjectures into a time not-yet present are speculations, not confirmed facts. Most animals have some power to anticipate the short-term future, and to the agency to change their own behavior to intersect with the preferred option. But human Will Power is enhanced by our ability to speculate farther and more accurately into the potential future.

When you scan a restaurant menu, do you just accept Fate, and point at random --- or do you pretend to choose on a whim, rather than compulsion? In my case, at first I sample a variety of options, then decide which suits my personal preference, which becomes my default choice. Or am I condemned to eat Tako (octopus sushi) forever, even though the smell nauseates me? :yum:

We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. — PoeticUniverse

How do we see that? When statisticians calculate a historical trajectory into the future, is that attempt to see a pattern-within-randomness, doomed to failure. Would you call it "absurd" that we can't see very far into the future? Seems to me that's just normal, as in a Normal Curve. However, in a Galton Board model of randomness, even though the Bell Curve is "fixed" the randomized balls are free to fall anywhere within the boundaries of the curve. The balls are rigidly constrained (fixed) by physics , but humans are freedom-loving change-agents, who can choose to bend (not break) the law. :nerd:

Freedom Within Randomness :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvHiee7gs9Y

Regular Order within Random Chaos :
Admittedly, our home world is rather “messy” in some ways, but I prefer to think of it more positively as “order out of chaos”. The chaotic part of reality is what scientists know as Randomness. The orderly part is known by religious people as Design. Put them together, and you get a world with enough order to produce living creatures, and to be understandable to their minds.

Intentional versus Involuntary :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel
. . . . The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).

I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. — Alkis Piskas

I agree that most of the argumentation on this forum is futile, because we have two different definitions of Free Will. Some black & white thinkers assume the term refers to absolute god-like freedom, which would allow us to work Magic in the world. But, I can't imagine that many reasonable people could hold such an outlandish view. In my use of the term, FreeWill is limited and constrained by the causal laws of Reality. But I view Rational Choice as a causal link in the chain of Determinism. :smile:

Free Will within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

We could pretend, imitating air-heads,
Posting nonsense on purpose in the threads,
But that then we meant to do this way,
Noting history, too, so ‘random’ holds not its sway. — PoeticUniverse

My personal worldview is not reality, but a mental model of what's out there. So you could call it "pretense" or "nonsense", but that label will also apply to you. If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense, then how can you think of yourself as Rational? :wink:

Rational behavior refers to a decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the optimal level of benefit or utility for an individual.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-behavior.asp

"What a strange suggestion, to deny the existence of freewill . . . I have no proof that you have free will, and you will never be able to show otherwise . . . Without free will, there could be no rational thought. As a consequence, it is quite impossible for science and philosophy to deny free will."
Quantum Chance : Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels by Nicolas Gisin
Note -- you can't prove FreeWill, because by definition it can't be replicated.

"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality). — 180 Proof

Yes. That's how Cypher inferred a juicy steak, when he rejected the Hadean underworld of harsh reality to the comforting illusion of normality in the Matrix. "Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth.

To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. — 180 Proof

That's also how I interpret Existentialism. You can't change how the world works, but you can change your Frame, your perspective. Back when I first heard of the Existentialist philosophy, it sounded sour & pessimistic, compared to my Christian worldview. But now, it seems to be just the other way around. Instead of patiently waiting for salvation in another life, I just try to make the best of the "bird in hand" life. Not by escaping from the chain of cause & effect, but by making free choices for my personal behavior, including attitude adjustment. So, the sensei makes sense to me.

Privileged Frame of Reference :
The observer's privileged perspective is due to the freedom to aim as you will
http://www.faithfulscience.com/relativity/privileged-frame-of-reference.html

No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. — 180 Proof

I agree. But to freely choose the red pill is a decision to change your worldview. That doesn't make any difference in Reality, but it makes a world of difference in Ideality : your mental model of reality. If we had no freedom, there would be no change. But my model of the world is completely different from that of my younger self. Was I fated to make that mental adjustment?

I like to refer to Roman poet Lucretius' notion of a "swerve" (course change) to illustrate how I view a modicum of Free Will within a general context of Determinism. I can't change Reality, but I can change how I view the world, and how I adapt my behavior (swerve) to Reality. When I'm driving, I can't move that obstacle in the road, but I am free to swerve and miss it. Fight Fate! :starstruck:

"if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect --- what is the source of free will possessed by living things . . .?" Lucretius (c, 99-- 55 BC) On the Nature of Things.

FREELY FRAMED PERSPECTIVE

The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs. — PoeticUniverse

Who is this "Will" you speak of? Do I know him? Can I introduce him to my Will? Actually, he calls himself "Me". And his screenname is "Gnomon the gnarly gnome", who sometimes masquerades as the robot "Will Robinson". The fool thinks he's choosing clever bon mots to post on this forum, when he's actually imprisoned in a dungeon of illusion, and has only himself -- his imaginary self -- to talk to. He is only free to won't what he wants, but can't have. He pretends to exercise his freedom as a Fall who chose to gravitate. But, he feels free to post gnarly nonsense on the foolosophy forum. :cool:

They wouldn't get vaccinated and couldn't, so they died from Covid. — PoeticUniverse

Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist. :joke:

I am looking for people who are specifically feeling the need for “end-time philosophies” — Joshua Jones

I don't personally feel a visceral need for pessimism-confirming doomsday, or dystopian post-apocalytic, scenarios. We get enough of that in popular media. Yet the purported cause of our collective demise varies --- from nuclear winter, to proliferating zombies, to alien invasions, to environmental collapse, to who knows what --- depending on the personal demons of each prophet of doom. But, I've lived long enough to see the world go through devastating downs and then come back up --- as predicted by the Hegelian theory of History. I was born at the end of the world-wide war after the "war to end all wars" (now known as WWI). Yet, everything was coming-up roses in the post-war years. The US was on top of the world, the economy had recovered from my parent's pre-war Great Depression -- in which psychological depression was rampant -- and the environment seemed as sunny as an ear-to-ear smile.

But then, when I was in grammar school, children were taught to duck & cover, when they were warned of a nuclear attack. But, as children do, we soon noticed that the prophesied bombs never fell. Apparently, because selfish leaders learned to compromise on a middle ground : "mutually assured destruction (MAD)". So we learned to "relax and love the bomb". But, then came Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which alerted us to wake-up & smell the smog. and hear the absence of chattering birds. Yet again, humanity began to change its dangerous downward course, although the averting swerve has taken generations to respond to steering wheel inputs. Technological progress is fast, but Cultural evolution is gradual : incremental changes in each generation.

Since those early days, I've been through two economic Recessions (one ironically labeled "Great"), four more post-great-wars, each less "great" than the one before, and a series of escalating cries of environmental "wolf". I even survived the Y2K techno-lypse, and the 2012 Mayan calendar finale. But life goes on . . . So, I've learned not to awfulize the ups & downs of world events. After all, we still have feathered dinosaurs for dinner, eons after the "great" extinction. Somehow, the story continues, even though the "end times" and "latter days" are always upon the current generation. Therefore, even though I am in my own "latter days", I take heart from Steven Pinkers' well-researched assessment of humanity's rational ability to learn from its predecessor's irrational mistakes. Therefore, I intend to keep-on chopping philosophical wood until my choppin' days are done. :cool:

PS___Sorry, was that off-topic?

To paraphrase an old Zen proverb :
"Before enlightenment (apocalypse), chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment (apocalypse), chop wood, carry water"
.
An Assyrian clay tablet dating to around 2800 B.C. bears the inscription :
“Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

Lament for Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lament_for_Ur

The Better Angels of Our Nature :
"Believe it or not, today we may be living in the most peaceful moment in our species' existence."
"Exploding myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of modernity,"
___Stephen Pinker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw that "There Is No Red Pill". — 180 Proof

So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. The "blue pill" is the default choice to avoid learning the hard truth of Existentialism. However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me. Except that Existentialism requires "an act of will" by a "free and responsible agent". So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No? :worry:

The terms "red pill" and "blue pill" refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives."
If you distrust the one offering a "red pill", you by dereliction of choice, choose the pill-not-taken. :joke:

What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom. — PoeticUniverse

Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism. Whatever happened to the romantic Fatalism of the Greeks? :gasp:

I read your article. So Jews would say the Trinity was pagan and although there is 3 in God there is not three persons? Is this how modern Jews see it? — Gregory

I don't have enough personal experience with Jewish theology to answer that. But it's clear that Orthodox Jews and Muslims are dogmatically opposed to any partition of their Atomic (indivisible) God. My general impression is that Jesus was a Jewish mono-theist. But some of his non-Jewish followers wanted to deify Jesus as the super-natural risen-from-the-dead Christ, just as some early Buddhist sects began to deify him, after his very human death.

Although Jesus and Siddhartha never claimed divinity directly, "great men" have often been deified, in retrospect, by their disciples. They found easy acceptance of such notions, because they were surrounded by Polytheists, who found it intuitive to envision their gods in human form. It's fairly common in history for human heroes to be regarded, by sycophantic acolytes, as either embodied gods themselves, or sent by the gods to save their suffering people. Even the pre-monotheism (pagan) Hebrews seemed to view their savior Moses as god-like. Actually, only after the return from Babylonian captivity, did the remnant of Jews become fervently monotheistic. :pray:


Monotheism vs Trinitarianism :
Serious critics of trinitarian doctrines are nearly always fellow Abrahamic monotheists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/judaic-islamic-trinity.html

The Apotheosis of Washington :
Name of a painting in the rotunda of the capital building.
"The Apotheosis of Washington depicts George Washington sitting amongst the heavens in an exalted manner, or in literary terms, ascending and becoming a god (apotheosis)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington

the idolization of Moses :
God says to Moses, “see, I make you as God to Pharaoh,”
https://newpolity.com/blog/moses-and-the-battle-not-to-be-god

WASHINGTON ELECTED TO GODHOOD

Another point to recall is that there are threefolds in many different religious traditions. — Wayfarer

Yes. Trinity seems to be a common mystical metaphor for unity within multiplicity. But, I prefer the concept of Unity as Holism. :smile:

How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity :
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the-trinity

Jewish Numerology (Gematria) :
In their eyes the number 3 was considered as the perfect number, the number of harmony, wisdom and understanding. ... It was also the number of time – past, present, future; birth, life, death; beginning, middle, end – it was the number of the divine
https://wno.org.uk/news/three-is-the-magic-number

Free won't decisions aren't free of the will either. No decisions are made in consciousness; consciousness reflects the brain product that has already finished and took time, plus even more time has passed while the representation in consciousness was being built and woven into the flow. — PoeticUniverse

So, you are a Drone controlled by Fate, or a Cyborg doing the Will of the hive? And your Artistry and Poetry are done un-consciously by an AI program. All this time I thought you were a regular guy. :joke:

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

Yes. I call it "FreeWill within Determinism".

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.

Wave-Particle duality — Gnomon
Nor a wavicle, either, but a quantum field. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Physicsts must believe in a non-empirical invisible Field that is the essence of empirical Reality.
Note -- just kidding. Since I believe that invisible Information is the essence of reality, accepting the metaphor of a mathematical field is no problem. But it makes me hungry for breakfast. :joke:

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. ” ― Lewis Carroll

Oh, I see.[/quote]

It's a miracle! The blind now see. The question remains though : see what?
Did you take the red pill, or the blue? :cool:

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. — Pinprick

That 3-in-1 doctrine was a rationalization of a logical contradiction. It was thought necessary to resolve some arguments among early Christians from different streams of Jewish and Apostolic influence. Some interpreted Father & Son literally, as two beings. But the abstract Jewish doctrine of divine unity (Monotheism) would not allow God to share god-hood with anyone else. Ironically, Yawheh was originally a son of El, in Hebrew theology. So, the Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism.

And one result of that miraculous conception was to multiply sub-deities in the form of Christian Saints, playing the role of Roman gods. Consequently, Trinity -- like wine as the blood of Christ -- must be accepted metaphorically in one sense, and literally in another. Most people seem to be flexible enough in their beliefs to juggle such counter-intuitive notions, even though they don't really understand them.

Ironically, atheist Physicists must do a similar juggling act with Quantum non-mechanics, such as Wave-Particle duality, and Quarks as 3-in-1 sub-particles, that are never seen separately -- unlike Superman, who is never seen together with Clark Kent. In super-nature, and quantum probability, all things are possible. :razz:

POLYTHEISM BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS FISHY

Not meta-physical. The will does as it has come to be. Time is fundamental as motion/movement/causality since there was no stillness stopping everything. Consciousness came to be along the way since before life there wasn't any; same with life. The notion of a self is the result of experiencing. No mysteries left. — PoeticUniverse

Again, my coinage of a new spelling for an old concept goes right over the reductive head. Since, by "Meta-Physical" I mean the non-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of reality, I am thinking of changing the spelling to "Menta-Physical", to indicate that I am referring to subjective Ideas, not objective objects, Nor to super-natural spooks. For example, Genes are physical, while Memes are Menta-Physical : physical substrate but mental (imaginary) expression.

That invisible-but-knowable mind-stuff (ideas ; information) was the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of On Nature. In the first volume, he presented the then-current state of physical science --- as known by direct sensory observation, without modern sense-enhancing technology. And then, in the subsequent (meta-) volume, he discussed the contemporary philosophical opinions about the natural world, which included Ideas, Speculations, Concepts, Theories, and Principles. Those were known only by introspection, or by exchanges of memes (words). Although some of his idealistic notions, such as "Form", were presented as-if realistic, like the Buddha, he was trying to avoid speculating about anything beyond the reach of sensory experience (i.e. super-natural). Yet, he lumped our sixth sense of Reason (nous) and Introspection (mental imagery) under the general heading of "phusis" (nature), which materialistic moderns interpret as "Physics", but not "Psychology".

Human "Will" is completely natural, but it is, by my definition, Menta-Physical. Reductionists typically try to reduce everything to its material substrate. But, that cannot account for Holistic phenomena in human culture. One such immaterial concept is "Health", which is derived from the root for "Wholeness". Another is "diet", which does not refer to any particular food, but to a generalized notion. All philosophical and scientific "Principles" are generalizations, that are never found in Nature, but only in human Culture. Likewise, all universal concepts, such as "the Universe", do not refer to any particular thing, but to a system that we can comprehend only in metaphors and analogies with physical objects.

So, the future-oriented Will is an emergent property of a physical Brain, sophisticated enough to generate a Menta-Physical (nee Meta-Physical) rational Mind. It's not a material object, but a motivating mental concept. And those who can't distinguish the difference, are shooting at a will-o-the-wisp. :joke:

PS___No mysteries? When did you achieve Enlightenment and Omniscience? Should I address you as "Bhodi"? :wink:

PPS___The original Buddha typically avoided speculations about supra-mundane concepts, except such principles as "Nirvana", which could be interpreted as a mundane state-of-mind, not a heavenly realm. Ironically, modern Buddhists do attribute super-natural feats to all bodhisattvas,

The Five Marks of the Mental :
features that set characteristically mental phenomena apart from the characteristically physical phenomena. These five marks (intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084/full

The Soul as Intellect :
Controversy surrounds almost every aspect of De Anima, not least because in it Aristotle characterizes the active mind—a topic mentioned nowhere else in his entire corpus—as ‘separate and unaffected and unmixed, being in its essence actuality’ (chôristos kai apathês kai amigês, tê(i) ousia(i) energeia; DA iii 5, 430a17–18) and then also as ‘deathless and everlasting’ (athanaton kai aidion; , 430a23). This comes as no small surprise to readers of De Anima, because Aristotle had earlier in the same work treated the mind (nous) as but one faculty (dunamis) of the soul (psuchê), and he had contended that the soul as a whole is not separable from the body \
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
Note -- In my thesis, the human Mind is also a form of Energy, in the sense of EnFormAction.

MYSTERY IS IN THE MIND
UNCERTAINTY IS IN THE MIND, AND IN PHYSICS

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? — Gnomon
Context + this:
"What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision?" — Gnomon — 180 Proof

Oh, I see. You put the apple of a FreeWill vs Determinism context together with the mention of a "meta-physical" orange, and concluded "metaphysical determinism". As a Compatiblist myself, I am not a proponent of that particular line of reasoning (see Fatalism below). Instead, I was suggesting that human Reason could be an emergent "meta-physical" (mental not physical) Cause of forging a new link in the physical chain of Causation. The ability to choose between probabilistic options, is a determinant of the subsequent branch of contingent causation. In other words, Reason is your get-out-of-bondage-to-Fate-free-card.

FreeWill is not an "illusion", it's a worldview. It's a meta-physically (memes, not genes) evolved belief system that allows creatures with reasoning ability to statistically predict the future course of events, and to make rational choices instead of knee-jerk reactions to current events. FreeWill is not self-deception, it's Self Determinism. :nerd:

Note 1. In the blog post prior to the one linked in the OP, I discussed the connection between scientific Reductionism, and the ancient worldview of Fatalism. There, I said :
Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feed-back loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical Causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might result from external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new learning links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is known as "Reasoning".

Note 2. Then, in the following blog post (caused in part by the prior post) I said :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.

In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942/A-Level/Philosophy/What-is-the-difference-between-determinism-and-fatalism/

Risks are problems of contingent causation; they are problems due to unforeseen or uncontrollable causal processes instigated by human action
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878435

Deterministic – a non-metaphysical concept which compatibilists assume – does not mean what determinists (or indeterminists) mean bymetaphysical determinism. You're confusing apples with oranges again, sir. — 180 Proof

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? I had never heard that label until you brought it up. Apparently, you are labeling my apples as oranges. . . . Sir. :joke:


Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will,
Note -- "Determinism" is metaphysical in the sense that it is a philosophical conceptual construct, not a physical object. FWIW, I accept that the general assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect is true, and how the real world works. However, from my Enformationism perspective, the self-reflective human mind, with self-generated will-power (intention ; agency), is an emergent Cause, as an added link in the cosmic chain of events and priors. Hence, limited local Free Will is compatible with general universal Determinism. I'll have more to say about that in another post. :smile:

Stuff? They are the only stuff that there is. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! But, unlike material stuff, mathematical "stuff" is a conventional idea, that only mathematicians can fully appreciate. The rest of us just have to take their word for it, that such invisible stuff is out there in the abstraction we call "Aether". But, that's OK. In my personal worldview, mind-stuff is "the only stuff there is". What I'm referring to is "Information". Which, like Energy, is known as a Causal Force only by its Effects on tangible matter. Otherwise, like Aether, it's un-touchable and un-seeable. But, we can imagine it in terms of material metaphors such as the "fabric of space", or as-if it's a "grid of lines" drawn on the surface of a topological warped plane in space..

So, in my view, it's all-information-all-the-time-everywhere. But, like Energy, raw Information can be converted into "material "stuff" that our physical senses can detect. Those us educated in the conventional concepts of modern physics, take those invisible "things" for granted. But a person from the jungles of New Guinea, might think you are talking about ghosts : the invisible & intangible spirits of departed ancestors, who now live in a parallel world. Talk about "primitive" notions! :joke:

PS__Both the primitives and the moderns accept the wisdom of their experts (shaman or scientist) about such unseen "stuff".

Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.

Aether is the spacious swarthiness of the skies
Of illusive hopes of finding the illumined providence
Riding on mythologies through the routeless night streams
Marooned man clutching godly stones of earthly dreams . . . .
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/aether/

Volition is, like every other nonlinear dynamic system, deterministic. (Btw, introspection is illusory, and I am a compatibilist.) So what question/s are you trying to raise with the OP? — 180 Proof

What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision? FWIW, I am also a compatiblist. However, if we both have free thought, you may not agree with how I arrived at my summation of the pertinent causes of Freedom Within Determinism.

My FreeWill questions are expressed in the linked blog post. For example : "Is FreeWill Fake Agency?" ; " is it Self-deception or Self-determinism?" Several other questions are addressed by the author of the SKEPTIC article. For instance : " “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”.

A link to the article is in the blog post. For those who may be on the fence, the second page of the blog has links to more detailed discussions of the perennial Free Will vs Determinism controversy. :smile:

Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

Nothing spooky here: the elementary physical matter are the quanta directly; thus what is primary is physical. — PoeticUniverse

I was using the colloquial term "spooky" in the same sense as Einstein's "spooky action at a distance". He wasn't denying that something physical was going on, just noting that it was counter-intuitive. Likewise, a mathematical "Field" has the same physicality as an imaginary "Ghost". It's a concept in a mind, that is used to explain some mysterious features of Reality. Scientists have concluded that something invisible & intangible is affecting the propagation of light through "empty" space.

By giving a Latin or Greek name, they make it seem more scientific and less mysterious. And the Effect is definitely physical and measurable. But the presumed Cause remains a mental concept with no physical properties. Aristotle proposed four kinds of causes. And a mathematical Field of relationships may be imagined as a "Material" Cause, minus the matter. And physicists use that notion as-if it is an "Efficient" Cause, even though the Zero-Point Vacuum Energy is merely Virtual : i.e. Potential.

So, an invisible Field is a plausible cause of physical behavior, for those who view the world through the lens of a physical Paradigm. But a Ghost is also a plausible Cause of physical books falling off shelves, for those whose Paradigm includes the possibility of non-physical causation. Personally, I'm more likely to accept the physical explanation. But I have to admit that a Cause with no sensory evidence is "spooky". :cool:

You might like this — Wayfarer

Thanks. I saved it for future reading. :smile:

I think the interesting philosophical question is the sense in which the mind - I'll use that term instead of 'consciousness' - is a product of the brain. — Wayfarer

I agree. But I also use another term to describe the relation of Mind to Brain : it's the meta-physical "Function" of the Brain's physical mechanism. In a machine, its function is the relationship between Input & Output. Like a computer, the input is Raw Information, and the output is Processed Information : Meaning. That is, the value relationship of the input data to the Self. An isolated Brain-in-a-Vat is non-functional and meaningless, because it has no Self to relate to. Ironically, the self-image is a metaphor or symbol of the body, and also a non-physical function of the brain-mind machine.

One of the most common uses of "function" is to describe a mathematical relationship between X and Y. It's a Ratio, and that's the function of a brain : to rationalize -- to reason. But none of those qualities is literally or physically in the brain. They are however, the result of physical activity in the body/brain as a holistic system. So such functions are not located in any particular area of the cerebrum. You might say that "Mind" is non-local. Which may be why some thinkers use quantum metaphors to describe it. However, those who claim that the Brain is the Mind are confusing the metaphorical reference with the concrete referent --- the physical mechanism with its non-physical function. :nerd:


Note -- In my usage, "Meta-Physical" is equivalent to "Non-physical", but in a positive instead of negative sense. "Non-physical" could be interpreted as "Un-real", But Meta-Physical merely denotes that which is beyond the range of our physical senses and instruments. But not beyond the reach of rational inference. Such functions are knowable only in terms of an implicit connection between observed Output and deduced Input, or vice-versa. In the processing of Information the output has changed in ways that are meaningful to a rational mind.

Example -- the function of an automobile is Transportation from A to B. But where is "T" itself located, and what is it made of? Hint -- it's an idea.

Relationship : non-physical connection ; correlation ; communication ; proportion ; contingency : dependence ; an imaginary invisible link between people or things

Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing? — Enrique

In the book I'm currently reading, The Single Simple Question . . ., the author Peter Carter says, "Although scientists no longer use the term, it turns out that there's something like the ether after all. Only the name has been changed to fields". But the concept of "Fields" is just as spooky as the empty-space notion of invisible intangible essential "Aether". He quotes physicist Sean Carrol, "the fields themselves aren't made of anything --- they are what the world is made of".

That's what you might call "an insubstantial substance". But, in my Information-centric thesis, I call it "Potential", which is not a thing, but merely the power to Actualize things. Of course, that's not a scientific definition, merely a philosophical concept. It's analogous to the usual definition of "Energy" --- not as a physical substance, but as an Aristotelian "primary substance" --- the ability or capacity to do work. Which is merely the power to cause Change. We can't define it by what it is, but by what it does.

So, scientists have not been able to do away with the necessity for some kind of potent nothingness. Ironically, that's hardly an empirical "realist" concept, but more like a hypothetical "idealist" notion. We know the Aether must exist in some sense, but we just can't put our finger on it. So, we define it with as-if metaphors. :nerd:


In physics, aether theories (also known as ether theories) propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field as a transmission medium __Wiki

In Greek mythology, Aether was the personification of the upper sky, ... thought to be the substance that allowed light waves to travel through empty space.

Empty Space = Free Space = Aether :
Some claim that empty space has no physical properties, but if you eliminate the notions of permittivity and permeability from Maxwell or Einstein's equations, ratios on which the existence and behavior of all fields entirely depends, the theories will completely fall apart. Some believe in the reality of nothingness, that empty space as such is real, and accept that notion as an integral part of their physics, but can't even ascribe any physical properties to it.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/empty-space-free-aether-laurent-r-duchesne

Primary Substance :
"Aristotle’s metaphysics of potentiality/ actuality, substance/accidents, matter/ form, essence/ existence, and four causes/ causal powers is increasingly recognized as the framework underlying the physical and biological sciences, . . ."
https://askaphilosopher.org/2019/08/13/aristotles-substance-and-accident/

The problem with constitutions and Bills of Rights is: who's going to uphold them? How are they to be policed? And if social media companies transgress where are they to be convicted? — Tim3003

Yes. Right now, the primary ethical regulator of major social media is the court of public opinion, led by investigative journalists. But that still leaves it up to the companies to self-regulate, or to deflect criticism with a brand-name change (e.g. Meta, nee Facebook).

An early attempt to supervise the net was the US Telecommunications Act of 1996. And there are some spotty attempts to codify Cyber Law. But we still don't have a world-wide central authority, other than the various voluntary Internet Standards & Protocol organizations. The UN could possibly establish a global clearing house for standards and regulations, but it is often internally divided over political concerns,

So, those who favor Net Neutrality might object to any government influence. Yet, some kind of non-governmental organization (NGO) might be sponsored, but not controlled, by the UN, Anyway, I'm glad it's not up to me to grab the cyber-tiger by the tail. Fortunately, there are many minds, better informed than mine, that are focused on the core problem of Democracy : how to regulate, not dictate. :smile:

Well, I'm keeping my word, I've made my last attempt to discuss my speculations with you, Gnomon. — 180 Proof

Hey! I didn't mean to offend you with my non-comprehension of your "via negativa" speculations. That approach is just as valid as my "via positiva" for conjectures beyond the scope of empirical science. It just doesn't fit my personal amateur methodology. I'm sure that lots of philosophers, including the Buddha, respond to ineffable topics with negations and koans. Even in my thesis, I admit that negations can carry Information. For example, "Zero" and "Infinity" are words & symbols that stand-in for that which is unknowable, yet meaningful. Apparently, you don't grok my Enformationism worldview either. And that's OK. I'm aware that it's an abstract & holistic concept that's hard to wrap your mind around. Merry Holidays to you! :cool:



Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines Via Negativa as, “The principle that we know what is wrong with more clarity than what is right, and that knowledge grows by subtraction.
https://coffeeandjunk.com/via-negativa/

'If we eliminate (negate) the ways the actual world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described, then what remains is every way the actual world – phase space – possibly could have been or can be described.' — 180 Proof

My problem with Sherlock's eliminative method is that, to be as certain as he seemed to be, you must begin negating from a position of Omniscience. Otherwise, you could omit something important from your list of necessities. Remember, the Butterfly Effect is predicated on a few seemingly minor differences in initial conditions. Sherlock's "deductions" from first principles were actually inductions from limited evidence and unprovable assumptions.

For example, presumably an omniscient Creator or Programmer of the actual world, would consider all possible forms, and then actualize only the "best of all possible worlds", as Leibniz claimed. In that case, what we know as Reality is already the result of a cosmic sifting process, but still full of conditional possibilites. That's why statisticians, whose job is to eliminate uncertainty as much as possible, begin by plotting a few known points, and then interpolate a Normal curve, from which they make their best guess predictions. Yet, those carefully aimed forecasts rapidly succumb to randomness over time & space.

Thus, for those of us who are not omniscient, we are faced with the mind-boggling mega-zillions of Possibilities that remain in a world of zillions of Potential combinations of physical & metaphysical interactions. For me, that would be a daunting task. I have no way of knowing all the "ways the actual world could not have been". So, I have to begin my investigation into Reality from a position of limited personal knowledge (plot points). And most of that "knowledge" is general & vague, instead of specific & precise. Consequently, my Normal Curve -- plotted from a few points of positive evidence -- has many degrees of possibility (phase space) in which to go wrong.

Therefore, unlike Sherlock, my attempts to see beyond the Big Bang, would not present a high degree of confidence. So, all I can say is that it works for me right here and right now. But I could be wrong. Absolutely wrong. Which is why I have to qualify my deductions (or inductions) as merely reasonable guesses. And your guess could be as good as mine, as long as the reasoning is not mis-aimed by false premises : initial assumptions. That's why philosophers are not prophets. They can only compare a variety of personal guesses to see what they have in common. On this forum, our range of worldviews is wide, but we are forced to view them in the light of skepticism & critical thinking from different perspectives. That said, I can see some overlap in our personal paradigms, but the non-intersecting parts are still a bit fuzzy. :cool:

Pro-tip: as much as and whenever possible, for clarity's sake, avoid sumarizing in your "own words". A thesaurus and philosophical dictionary don't bite. — 180 Proof

I get the feeling that you are talking down to me, but not dumbing-it-down enough. I'm not a Pro, merely an amateur cogitator. I have no formal training in Philosophy, and most of my reading has been in hard Science, not fashionable ideologies. So, when I refer to a technical philosophical issue, I have to paraphrase it in my own words, in order to understand it. Teach me as-if I'm a six year old. :cool:

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein

so, yeah, "obviously" you've not familiarized what I've spoon-fed to you. — 180 Proof

Obviously your are not swallowing what I poke at you, and vice-versa. So, what might cause two intelligent people to have a "failure to communicate"? That is the ultimate question for Philosophy. But the most common cause is a clash of worldviews or attitudes, in which words have different meanings, and motives are contradictory. I think our worldviews are not so different, but both of ours seem to be custom-made, so we're comparing apples and oranges. :joke:

The G*D Mind who programmed the universe is still a 'God', even if not infinitely smart. How is it there as the Eternal Basis of All, it thus necessarily having no input? What memory does it have to work with? What relations of concepts would it have to use in order to sort out thoughts? How could it make plans? What source would it use for making a universe out of? What purpose would it have? — PoeticUniverse

Good questions! I don't pretend to know the answer to those un-verifiable metaphysical conundra. All I know is that an Aristotelian First Cause is logically necessary to explain the existence of our contingent cause & effect world. So, I adopt the Aquinian Necessary Being as the axiom of my Information-based worldview. Whatever that non-contingent Entity might be, it serves as the "Eternal Basis of All". Or as Tillch so eloquently phrased it : the Ground of Being --- the eternal foundation of the space-time structure we call Home.

Unfortunately, anything prior to the initial Act of Creation (Big Bang : Birth Pang) is not subject to empirical verification. However, using normal philosophical methods of inference, I can establish a few logically necessary qualities of the Programmer of those initial conditions, and the evolutionary development of emergent features. For example, a primary characteristic of the presumptive FC is the creative power (Potential) to enform a new physical world from nothing but Cosmic Power, Which in my information-centered thesis I call EnFormAction (Meta-Physical Energy ; power to give form to the formless). If that notion sounds far-fetched, it is supported by logical argument and scientific evidence in the Enformationism thesis.

Most cosmologists agree that, for anything to exist in Space-Time, something must be Infinite & Eternal. But they typically think of that "something" as Natural Laws & Energy, which are not things but concepts. Yet, as a philosopher, not bound by the rules of space-time, I can conjecture into the un-bounded void beyond the Big Bang beginning. And I have various names for the eternal nothing that gave birth to something : i.e. everything in our world. And one name for that non-physical non-thing is Enformer : the creative power to convert Potential into Actual.

Most alternatives to a god-like Cause assume (without evidence) that Natural Laws and Constructive Energy have always existed (eternal Potential). And I agree, except that I call the mathematical "laws" of Nature : LOGOS. And the ability to "do work" (cause change) is what I call EnFormAction (the power to cause changes in Form). Moreover, I define "Form", not as a physical shape, but as the mathematical structure of each real thing. That's my interpretation of Plato's posited Source of all real things. If the logic of math & reason has always existed, rather than evolved, you could infer that it must be "infinitely smart", in the sense of encompassing all Possibilities.

By definition, any First Cause must have causal "input" in order to encode the criteria for a new world, in the form of initial conditions (constants, definitions) and rules for interaction (natural laws). That's why I use the metaphor of a Programmer to describe the FC. Our world was "born" with all the genetic information (constants & laws) necessary to compute a universe from a sub-atomic-scale dot of data. So, the data input was the program we call "Nature", which is currently running (evolving) on the self-creating self-organizing "machine" we call our World.

The "memory" (temporary repository or register) for all that calculating (energy exchanges) is Matter, which takes on physical forms as defined by the program criteria. Another theory of cosmic memory is the imprint of physical changes and energy exchanges on the gravitational field (see link below). I don't know much about such things. But, it's usually assumed by scientists and philosophers, that every change in the world leaves a trace (encoded information) behind. Long ago, I read an excellent sci-fi novel that was based on that notion. And that was long before the LIGO observatory detected gravitational waves from distant galaxies.

The "relations of concepts" you question, would be what we call the Logic of Nature, which we know primarily in terms of abstract Mathematics. But we also imagine natural relations in terms of Space & Time, which are metaphysical concepts, not physical things. We perceive such abstractions in terms of metaphors, that only exist as mental images. That's why we can only communicate our ideas about such non-entities in the form of Meta-Physical Metaphors.

How could the presumed Creative Cause "make plans"? Presumably, in the same way human minds create imaginary scenarios, and then plot a course to make it real. The best laid plans of gods and men, oft go awry. Unless, the planner is an omnipotent programmer, with the power to control how the universe gets from Now to Tomorrow, from Input to Output. By inputting criteria into initial conditions and laws, that guide the world to compute an answer to the Programmer's question. I don't know what that question was, but it is the reason we are here in space-time. And the answer to that reason is the "Purpose" of this experiment in evolutionary programming. All I know is that it seems to involve increasing complexity & organization of matter & energy & mind.

In the Real world, each physical effect must be preceded by a physical cause. Except, when the cause is an idea in a mind. That's often called "the power of ideas", or "agency", or "creativity". So, the notion of a mental (meta-physical) Cause is not so far-fetched. Yes, I'm aware of the notion that even creative ideas can be traced back to a chain of physical causes, but what if the First Cause was the metaphorical pool-shooter, standing outside the pool table (physical universe)? That aiming Agency is the "Source" of all information in the world, which is also the source of all forms in the world. Ironically, in the Enformationism thesis, the Cause is also the Effect, in the sense that the Enformer is both transcendent & immanent. It consists of Potential Information (power to enform), which is a shape-shifting force similar to Energy, which is the "source" of Mass and Matter.

The bottom line of all this speculation is that, like the immaterial human mind, the Meta-Physical Mind of the Programmer exists in the form of Creative Power (EnFormAction) : which is both the Enformer and the Enformed, both the Creator and the Creature. A philosophical label for such a Power Input, which is also the Output, is PanEnDeism. Look it up. :smile:


EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

LOGOS : abstract mathematical rules of relationships, that we call Logic or Reason. What we call "Mathematics" is simply Symbolic Logic as we imagine it metaphorically. Those rules determine how real things fit together into a holistic Structure.

Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses. So basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

How the Universe Remembers Information :
Nonetheless, physicists are on the hunt for evidence of an observable “memory effect” left behind by gravity that could soon be picked up in a lab.
https://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/how-the-universe-remembers-information

How is time an abstract concept? :
Time is a abstraction, a filing system used to arrange events and memories into a logical system of cause and effect. Per relativity, space and time are not discrete entities, but a single construct called spacetime.
https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time

Space and infinity are some of my favorite ideas, — Gregory

"Space" and "Infinity" are not physical things that can be stretched or compressed or divided. Instead, both are ideas about things (i.e. their relationship). Astronomers are using a metaphor when they talk about the "expansion" of space, or when Einstein presented the notion of "Block Space-Time". For example, in imagination, you can take a knife and carve a chunk of Space into a million pieces, and they will all be the same size as the chunk : infinite or zero. That's because Ideas are Meta-Physical, not Physical ; Ideal not Real ; Relative not Absolute. :smile:

Here, I was conjecturing that if consciousness can effect the physical activity of the brain, then since the brain is a physical object, consciousness would need some physical mechanism to effect it. — tom111

FWIW, I'm guessing that Consciousness -- a Meta-Physical effect of brain processes -- does not directly affect the brain that produces it. Instead, we become aware of our private nonverbal thoughts, when we either convert them into conventional words (as in "I told myself" ; internal narrative), or hear ourselves saying those words (i.e. aural feedback), or see how others react. For example, there is an old saying : "how could I know what I think, until I hear what I'm saying?" (see quote below) :smile:

PS__This notion of feedback implies that the Brain normally operates on auto-pilot. But, when we objectify our subjective thoughts, in words or deeds, we can take over control of the system by provoking a reaction from the physical brain. That feedback loop is partly physical (neural network) and partly meta-physical (i.e. meaning, significance to me).

PPS__I suspect that people who have an "internal narrative" are Introverts, who are constantly observing their own thoughts. By contrast, Extroverts need to hear their thoughts & feelings reflected back by other people. Those in the middle of the continuum probably do it both ways. Either way, it's a feedback loop that influences the brain with it's own thoughts. .

“How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
― E.M. Forster

Fun fact: some people have an internal narrative and some don't
As in, some people's thoughts are like sentences they "hear", and some people just have abstract non-verbal thoughts, and have to consciously verbalize them
https://ruinmyweek.com/weird/internal-narrative-vs-abstract/

That's an uncharitable reading to say the least. I've proposed an alternative / complementary way of 'doing metaphysics' not unlike negative (apophatic) theology is an alternative / complementary to positive (cataphatic) theology. — 180 Proof

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your intention. I didn't intend to the un-charitable, but I was shooting in the dark, so I might have missed what I was aiming at. Obviously, you are referring to a philosophical or theological approach that I am not familiar with. Perhaps, because I have no background or formal training in such esoteric topics. However, I looked-up "apophatic" and now I almost see what you meant by "negative metaphysics". It's trying to describe an ineffable being or concept by listing examples of what it is not. I was vaguely aware that medieval mystics used such reverse poetry to describe the deity they experienced subjectively --- in objective terms that always miss the target, but draw a circle around that empty place. :smile:

Apophatic :
The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Wrong. Also, "Religion and Mysticism" refute themselves and globally are uncorroborated by – inconsistent in manifold ways with – both human facticity and the natural world. They are not targets of my speculative concerns. — 180 Proof

OK, you have denoted that which is not of concern to your philosophy. But I'm still not sure what is in the Black Box, whose contents you are describing without opening. If it ain't "Religion and Mysticism" what is it? Is there a common name for it, other than arcane terms like "Apophatic". I understand Terrence Deacon's notion of the "Power of Absence", but in the absence of some positive information, I'm at a loss to imagine that which is not there. I fail to see what "human facticity" has to do with Metaphysics, except in the sense that it is the common human perspective on that which is not Physics. I need you point in the direction that I should look, in order to see what you are seeing. :cool:

Note -- FWIW, I call my Black Box neither Religion nor Mysticism, but merely "philosophy".

Your "thesis" doesn't hold up under either philosophical or scientific scrutiny, sir. And when you're presented with my "disruptive" alternative, you're so busy proselytizing that you uncharitably read my proposal (re: negative ontology ↪180 Proof
) and fail to even question its premises in the context of (western) ontology. — 180 Proof

OK. So you're not seeing what I'm seeing. That's no reason to give-up. That's philosophy, I'm willing to keep shooting in the dark until I finally hit some target, even if I don't know what I'm aiming at. But, what you call "proselytizing" is what I call "explaining what I'm talking about". Maybe you need to do more proselytizing, If you want to bring me into the fold. :halo:

they occlude as much as, or more than, they clarify. — 180 Proof

Apparently, we are both occlusive in our 'splaining. I don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know what I'm talking about. But, maybe, if we keep "throwing mud" on the wall, some of it will eventually stick. Teach me. :joke:



PS___I have learned the hard way to not assume that posters will click on my links. That's why I usually try to summarize, in their words or my own words, what the link means.

If you want to start a new thread about the use of new words, I am likely to participate, although I will be out of town with no computer for three days. — T Clark

I'm not likely to start a thread on such a broad topic, and one that is outside my limited range of expertise. But I'm happy to discuss specific examples of Neologisms and technical jargon. For instance, my usage of the baggage-laden word "metaphysics", with a revived ancient meaning, is essential to understanding the neologism of "Enformationism". Most discussions on internet forums merely recycle old ideas expressed in conventional terms. But, if you have a novel idea, especially a whole new worldview, it would be self-defeating to use words carrying obsolete meanings. :smile:

A neologism is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology.
___Wiki

Philosophy is Meta-Physics :
"As for a super-natural realm, however, can we ever hope to know about a realm not open to the inquiries of science? If it is beyond our physics, then it's metaphysics --- philosophy again."
___Peter Carter, MD
The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions
Note -- The author seems to advocate Secular Humanism, as opposed to conventional religions. His challenging question is "does every event have a cause?" If so, then a trickle of Free Will is lost in the flood of Causation. However, he inadvertently raises the same "get out of jail free" exception that I use to justify my own notion of "FreeWill within Determinism". :joke:

in which people are still talking mainly about the same phenomena that have been discussed for a thousand or more years — T Clark

Yes. But my thesis is based on 21st century science, with strange concepts that didn't exist eons ago. Which necessitates the use of novel tech terms, even though it falls into the 2 & 1/2 millennia old category of Metaphysics, (according to my reading of Aristotle). Ironically, Shannon's "Information Theory" deliberately gave a new meaning to an old word. So, when I refer to the original conventional meaning (e.g. meaning in a mind, not digits in a computer) I have to contrast it with the entrenched technological notion. So, for convenience, I have added a growing number of pertinent definitions to the thesis glossary over the years. For example, "meta-physics", if taken literally, should be self-explanatory, And here's one I didn't coin, that I may add eventually just to deny that my thesis implies : Acosmism. (That arcane term was used by 180proof). :smile:

PS__a good example of novel philosophical coinages is A.N. Whitehead's Process and Reality. which is on the same basic topic as my thesis. I had a lot of difficulty reading it, because it didn't have a glossary of neologisms, So, I feel your pain. But I persevered. :joke:

There's a very sensitive sub-topic around this point - the boundary between metaphysics, philosophy and religion are somewhat hazy and it's easy to find yourself crossing it whenever this subject is discussed. — Wayfarer

Oh yes! My head is "bloody but unbowed", as a result of encounters with anti-religionistas. But my thesis necessarily crosses the line, because traditional religions in most cultures were based on the philosophical & scientific memes of their time. I have no problem with the philosophical basis of Hinduism, it was insightful for its era. But I see no philosophical reason to bathe in the polluted Ganges, It's just an ancient cultural practice that some feel compelled by religious loyalties to continue. Likewise, I appreciate the philosophical foundation of Buddhism, but I don't follow any of its tradition religious rituals. For example, I studied Meditation long ago, but it was a secular form. :smile:

My approach is somewhat religious, but not the way my grandad (for instance) would have understood. — Wayfarer

Some would consider my behavior to be somewhat religious, but with my Fundamentalist family and relatives I tread lightly. I do have a concept that I call "G*D" in the thesis, but it's not a lordly tyrant in the sky. Instead, it's more like Spinoza's Nature sive Natura, or Plato's Logos, or Lao Tzu's TAO. I used to attend meeting of a local Deist group, but they split between the religious and secular factions. :nerd:

IN ANY CASE, what I'm wanting to say here is that there is a strong implicit prohobition against certain kinds of ideas associated with religion, which is well articulated by Thomas Nagel: — Wayfarer

I agree with Nagel's hope that their is no "God" (in the Biblical sense). But, have never been able to find a reasonable alternative to a First Cause, that is necessarily preter-natural, in the sense of existing prior to the beginning of our natural world. But it's not "super-natural" in the sense of Greek super-hero gods, or a heavenly humanoid. If believing in a First Cause or Necessary Being makes me religious, I'm guilty. But I have no motivation to impose any doctrine on anyone. My posts on this forum are for self-development, not for evangelism. :cool:

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon
That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice. — T Clark

Surprise! I have already written an essay on that very topic. I get blow-back from lazy posters who don't care enough about philosophy to learn new ideas. They seem to want their philosophy expressed at an eighth-grade level. IMHO Philosophy is supposed to be disruptive. And my thesis in particular is intended to shake-up old hand-me-down notions and definitions of cutting-edge topics. :smile:

Why Coin Tech Terms? :
The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.

I don't reject your concept. I object to your use of "metaphysical" or "meta-physical" to name it. If I might paraphrase a wonderful statement from Cartuna from a different discussion: — T Clark

I have offered several alternative definitions. Can't you find one that doesn't offend your sensibilities. What motivated you to start this thread? Did you hope for a nice simple list of precisely-defined dos & don'ts. That's not philosophy, but propaganda or dogma. Philosophy, and especially subjective Metaphysics, is always open to interpretation. So, what's your interpretation of "my concept" (Enformationism), if it's not "Meta-Physics", as I defined it in the thesis : non-physical ; immaterial)?

Regarding Cartuna's post, scientists don't do "Metaphysics" by any name. But for idea-dissecting philosophers, that's all they do. Although some like to think they are practicing hard Science, when they argue endlessly over the meaning of words. Science is necessarily Reductive & Analytical & Precise. But Philosophy is necessarily Holistic & Synthetic & Vague (General, Universal, Moot). :cool:


Note -- Aristotle's "Categories" in The Metaphysics volume, are inherently general and non-specific.

Feynman on Philosophy :
A person talks in such generalities that everyone can understand him and it's considered to be some deep philosophy. However, I would like to be very rather more special and I would like to be understood in an honest way, rather than in a vague way. ___Richard P. Feynman

Was Richard Feynman a philosopher?
Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

As the links in my previous posts show I've addressed (my conception of) negative metaphysics – proposes eliminating necessarily unreal Xs as an alternative in contrast to positing categorical (e.g. Platonic) constructs of necessarily real "essences", "universals", etc – in our exchanges quite a few times over the last couple of years. — 180 Proof

I got the implicit dismissive message of "negative metaphysics" : apparently it's intended to ban Metaphysics (i.e. anything non-physical) from philosophical discussion. But I still don't get a positive understanding of why you would want a gag order on Philosophy (see PS below). Since modern Science took over the role of Naturalism after the Enlightenment era, all that Philosophy has left to study is the non-physical aspects of the natural world. Namely Concepts (ideas. minds, consciousness), Essences (form, mathematical structure) and Universals (qualia), which are all "unreal Xs" in your outdated definition of Metaphysics, but are important topics in my 21st century definition of Meta-Physics. That's the study of preter-natural features of Reality, in the sense that Mind is the "more-than" of Holism. It is something in-addition-to Brain matter. So the Brain is Natural, but Mind is preter-natural (i.e Cultural).

Of course, some disingenuously try to place Mind under the heading of Physics, because it is a Function of a brain, knowable only by another Mind. That's why you can't place Consciousness or Reasoning under a microscope or create it in a Cyclotron. That's not the kind of thing that Physicists, Biologists, or Chemists study. So why would you want to negate the only remaining subject matter of philosophical investigation? (see PS below) Meta-Physics is inherently subjective, hence it is literally "un-real" in any objective sense. Aristotle tried to avoid the Ideal implications of his own metaphysics. But ironically later philosophers realized that he was in denial, because his de-idealized notion of "Form" is itself only an abstract idea about reality, not a real thing itself. Moreover, all Functions (e.g. Mind) are knowable only by rational Minds, not physical senses. (See The Trouble With Psychology below).

My Enformationism worldview is indeed Idealistic (unreal) in the sense of asserting the value of Ideas in a world of human Culture. But it is also Realistic in the sense that it does not deny the value of Material objects to denizens of Nature. Take away non-physical ideas, and Culture vanishes from the world. And along with Culture, Science itself would disappear from the world. And Technology would revert to apes pounding nuts with rocks. :nerd:

PS__ I can guess the answer to my own question above : you want to ban Metaphysics, because of its association with Religion and Mysticism. Me too! That's why I want to bring it back under the broad umbrella of Classical Philosophical Science by labeling it "Meta-Physics". Although the topic is inherently Subjective, I try to keep it grounded in Objective science as far as possible.


In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... Qualia have traditionally been thought to be intrinsic qualities of experience that are directly available to introspection. However, some philosophers offer theories of qualia that deny one or both of those features.
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Idealism in sense (1) has been called “metaphysical” or “ontological idealism”, while idealism in sense (2) has been called “formal” or “epistemological idealism”. The modern paradigm of idealism in sense (1) might be considered to be George Berkeley’s “immaterialism”, according to which all that exists are ideas and the minds, less than divine or divine, that have them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

The journal embraces a broad and dynamic definition of the preternatural, since the ... strongly encourages submissions covering cultural traditions worldwide.
https://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Preternature.html

The trouble with Psychology :
With respect to science, human psychology faces an immense obstacle posed by its focus on the mind. Human psychology is defined as "the study of the mind, occurring partly via the study of behavior", but the mind is not a physical organ, it's an abstract concept, and measurements of the mind's state are indirect and subjective (by way of a subject's verbal reports, for example). This makes psychology, as defined, a branch of metaphysics, not physics.
https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html

GAG on Philosophy

My only complaint has been your confusing misuse of the word "metaphysics." As for your ideas themselves, I don't have strong feelings either way. — T Clark

As Wayfarer noted, I explicitly differentiate between the common definitions, and my peculiar information-based usage of that traditional philosophical term. Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. If you don't accept my proffered concept, that's on you. But, If I am not making my meaning clear, I guess the fault is on me, for trying to add some novelty to the worn-out phrases of philosophy. :joke: