My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof

Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning, . The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.

Turing's computer only existed as an idea before that. And later, the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle showed that " a universal computing device can simulate every physical process". From that insight, some information theorists, including Tegmark, concluded that the physical universe itself is actually a mathematical simulation. Hence, material reality is ultimately made of mathematical (meta-physical) Information, instead of tiny atoms of physical stuff. Hence, most physicists today have given-up the ancient notion of a physical atomic foundation to the world, and now imagine that matter itself is an emergent quality of invisible information "Fields" : consisting of Potential (unactualized) Energy and Virtual (ideal) Particles.

So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. Instead of exclusive & reductive, Black & White ; Either/Or, (1) or (0) categories, my own holistic worldview is what I call "BothAnd". It accepts the real physical world as it appears to our physical senses, but it also acknowledges the underlying Ideality of invisible & intangible stuff -- including the abstract concepts that populate the human mind. Therefore, rather than excluding our own Consciousness from our worldview, the BothAnd principle includes Physical & Meta-physical, Real & Ideal, Matter & Mind. :nerd:


Abstract : thought-of apart from concrete realities

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics

Information is Physical :
"Even if we encode data as bits, the content, representation, and ontology of information appear separate. How then, can information be physical? . . . what link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and its physicality?"
James Glattfelder, Information-- Consciousness-- Reality

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

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.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. So, it becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me). — 180 Proof

Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.

There are a few hard-nosed and credentialed scientists & mathematicians & philosophers that are working to establish Information as an orthodox theory for future scientific applications. Information and the Nature of Reality, is the product of serious scientific investigation. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your attitude toward Religion, they also apply their understanding of multitasking Information to metaphysical & religious questions that have puzzled philosophers & theologians for centuries. But then, so did Einstein (see below).

The 2019 book by James Glattfelder (see below) -- trained in physics, but worked as a quant in international finance -- pulls all the various threads together into a proposed new paradigm, based on the ubiquity of Information : "Over 300 years ago, the human mind discovered the machine code of reality : mathematics. ... Science appears to have hit a dead end when confronted with the nature of reality and consciousness. In this fascinating and accessible volume, James Glattfelder explores a radical paradigm shift uncovering the ontology of reality".

These pioneers of a new paradigm are no more far-out & extravagant than the Cosmological Holism you seem to favor. The anti-reductive notion of Holism was adopted early by "non-parsimonious" New Agers, but has gradually seeped into mainstream science. Of course, a reasonable degree of skepticism should be applied to any strange new ideas. But, philosophers are well-advised to carry the sword of an open mind behind the shield of skepticism. :cool:

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence. ___James Glattfelder
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23108

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics :
https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVIAT-5

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” ― Albert Einstein

Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level. — Banno

Is that a fact -- or an opinion? :wink:

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system of lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism). — 180 Proof

I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.

If I were you, I'd be a little gentler in my criticism of TMFs notion of a mind-based reality. Wholes and Mathematical Principles do not exist in the material world, but only in minds -- which are themselves holistic functions of physical brains. Even the notion of a Cosmos is a mental concept that only exists as a philosophical category, to explain how all the zillions of material parts add-up to something greater than the computed sum -- just as the Mind is more than a bunch of neurons. Besides, I noticed that your link site is categorized under the heading of "Plato", best known for his Idealistic worldview. :cool:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

"The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe." — Gnomon

Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome. — Banno

You don't agree with my inference that the "Big Bang" put an end to the eternal universe assumption, and re-opened the question of First Cause??? I'm crushed! Guess it's time for "Gnome" to slink away from the slanted "light of reason". . . . . Or not. :groan:

Ironically, the sarcastic nickname came from Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who had presumed that Nature existed forever, or at least was in a steady state. Other astronomers, seeing the implications for an instantaneous divine creation event, began to imagine other explanations for the sudden appearance of our material universe (along with space & time & laws of nature) that avoided the logical inference of a law-maker. The most common alternative scenario is some variation on the never-ending Multiverse or the sci-fi Many Worlds conjectures. Moreover, the Inflationary Model, in which the whole universe popped into existence in a fraction of a second, sounds more like a miracle than even the biblical creation in seven days.

After many years of myth-making, they still have no physical evidence to support their hypothetical models, taking for granted that the laws of Nature, and their embodiment in matter are eternal -- hence no need for a Lawgiver. So, those imaginative alternatives are not yet empirical facts. In fact, you could call The Multiverse a materialist's creation myth, starring magic Matter. Fortunately, philosophers are not bound to a belief in an infinite & unbounded universe, So, they are able to see the logic behind Aristotle's necessary First & Final Cause axiom for the chain of causation.

So, the gnarly gnome will continue to explore all plausible answers to those open questions. Re-opened by the calculations of a finite beginning, as revealed by hard-nosed empirical scientists, following the astronomical evidence where it led : to a singular point (a question mark) at the beginning of Time. :nerd:

Albert Einstein, in his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, dedicates a chapter to this idea, as its title suggests: The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. In the words of us laypeople, Einstein – among others – suggests a “spherical” universe, one in which we can venture out in a straight line, and circumnavigate back to our starting position. But how is such a cosmos possible, let alone fathomable?
https://futurism.com/finite-yet-unbounded
Note -- That sounds like circular reasoning, in which you end-up right back where you started.

The Aristotelian universe was a finite bounded sphere. But it was also eternal---unbounded in time.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/aristotle/aristotle_hoplite_spear.html

Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos. — 180 Proof

You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :

Here's another illustration of anomalous structure within a random distribution : if a series of coin flips turn-up heads 10 times in a row, it's surprising but not impossible -- seeming to defy the 50/50 odds. Yet, long strings of 1s or 0s occur naturally in chaotic systems on rare occasions. But "it takes, on average, 2046 flips to achieve 10 heads in a row." So, from a close-up (reductive) point-of-view, that departure from the norm is an exception, but not a miracle. However, such a low probability string of heads, could plausibly indicate "purposeful" intention; perhaps, that someone is cheating. In other words, a mind may be interfering with natural randomness by special "selection" skewing the odds. Therefore, from a broader perspective, the possibility of Teleology makes sense. Cheaters & Magicians make fools of those who watch too closely.

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism. By definition a Mechanism cannot change its own inherent rigid step-by-step procedures. But an Organism can choose to adapt to a changing environment. That's why those of us who take a holistic approach to the world, often see signs of non-randomness that suggest a purposeful direction and goal-directed intention. :nerd:

Structures in the microwave background radiation :
It is commonly taken for granted (with the notable exception of Gurzadyan & Penrose [5]) that the temperature distribution in the CMB is purely statistical being produced by the quantum fluctuations . . . . Therefore, it was very unexpected for us to find significant differences . . . The differences between real and artificial maps were both qualitative and quantitative.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2013.0116

Coin Flipping Scam : Note -- Derren Brown is a magician, whose trade is doing what seems impossible.
https://nrich.maths.org/6954/solution

# Which is a map of brain neurons, and which maps the structural pattern of stars? :
https://www.universetoday.com/148966/one-of-these-pictures-is-the-brain-the-other-is-the-universe-can-you-tell-which-is-which/

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:


Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way : genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. ... The result is non-random evolutionary change.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05

Evolutionary cybernetics :
Then, we need to study the evolution of goal-directedness, i.e. control systems.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLCYB.html

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;) — jorndoe

You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?

I'm kidding. I know what you mean. But, just as rational thinking doesn't come easily to humans, cognitive biases seem to be inherent, even in those who aspire to objectivity. So, I tend to give pathetic humans a little slack. Besides, as I noted before, the term "Anthropic Principle" was created -- "by design" -- by objective scientists, to explain the parallels they saw between abstract laws of physics & initial conditions of evolution, and computer programs that are designed to reach a specific species of final output. :smile:

Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
Natural selection. — 180 Proof

Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"

By that, I assume he meant that he felt guilty for casting doubt on the Ultimate Explanation. And his uncertainty was exacerbated by his failure, admitted in The Origin of Species, to actually explain the origin of Life, which was a necessary precursor to the origin of species. And which seemed to evolve via an innate Logic. Ironically, that Logos is exemplified in the notion of Natural Selection. By another analogy, computer programs do their work in accordance with an "innate logic" (Boolean). And the origin of that syllogistic (rational) order was not a random accident, but was deliberately imparted by a rational & intentional Programmer. That's the "who" I was referring to. Natural evolution is the program, but who was the Programmer? :chin:

Darwin letter :
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,— but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his,
https://fs.blog/2014/11/charles-darwin-letter-joseph-hooker/

Evolutionary Logic :
These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin :
-- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
-- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
-- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
-- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias — 180 Proof

Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism. :smile:

Origin of Anthropic Principle :
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In 1952 British astronomer Fred Hoyle first used anthropic reasoning to make a successful prediction about the structure of the carbon nucleus.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). — TheMadFool

That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original Programmer of Nature. :smile:

Artificial : made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,

Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection — 180 Proof

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature?

A Selection is a voluntary Choice between alternatives, based on a value system. The "no mind behind evolution" assertion seems to imply that the "Selection" is just as random as the mutations. But Darwin used that term with domestic animal breeding in mind. And the breeder had a future goal in mind, which was targeted by his personal value system. So, you will have to come up with a different mechanism than Darwinism, if you want to eliminate the Mind behind the Selection. :smile:

To Select : carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

PS__Accidental "sifting", as in the orderly arrangement of rocks after a flood, may not appear to be a "selection". Yet, like a fish net, the weave is deliberately sized according to the preferred size of the catch. The rocks & fish vary in size, and are selected or rejected based on their inherent characteristics, but in accordance with the pre-determined criteria.

Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism). — TheMadFool

The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end?

Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work.

But, today, that notion -- which ruled for thousands of years -- sounds like nonsense to those of us in a post-slavery society. So, another, more modern, theory has emerged. It assumes that G*D, or the gods, are trying to create a perfect race of robots. So, without giving explicit instructions, they nudge and prod their automatons via emotions or brain-probes to create better & better social systems and technologies : the better to serve their Matrix masters. Although I am aware that humans have very limited freewill, I don't like to think of myself as a robot, controlled by some sinister central command.

So, my preferred scenario is similar to Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. It assumes that God is reproducing him/herself. And the ultimate fate of the world is to become godlike ; perhaps, the son of God. Physicist & Cosmologist, Frank Tipler, believes that our illusory material world is actually composed of something like mathematical information (spirit), and concludes, like deChardin, that it is evolving toward a spiritual Singularity, directed by the mathematical laws of Nature. Some Transhumanists are less mathematically or spiritually-inclined, and assume that humans evolved by accident to the role of top ape, and are merely using their superior intellectual tools to create a technological Utopia -- no need for a higher power to intervene -- or to serve.

To be clear, I don't take the Omega Point theory as gospel. It's simply serves as a modern allegory, to update or replace the outdated religious myths of the past. AFAIK, this hopeful narrative is not a revelation from G*D, but merely an imaginary construct of the human mind, as it grapples with the otherwise pointless situation we find ourselves "thrown into", as babes in the wood, a mysterious world without any direct divine supervision : Heideggar's "Thrownness". Myths of the past typically implied that the "truth" was revealed to some wise or pious person long ago. But, I think those prophets merely made-up hortatory stories to suit the times.

However, for those who can believe, they gain a feeling of knowing the meaning of life, and the purpose of the world. That may be a Placebo Effect, but it seems to work quite well. Unfortunately, I have a problem with faith, so my belief is partial and provisional, pending more & better information, from which to fabricate a story that is a closer approximation to the Truth. :cool:

Omega Point :
Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, . . . ... "if this book is to be properly understood, it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise". . . . Teilhard's theory was a personal attempt in creating a new Christianity in which science and theology coexist. . . . When the earth reaches its Omega Point, everything that exists will become one with divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Intelligent Evolution : a modern myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:

I think that the crux of the Creation question is that ultimately something must have been self-created in order for anything to exist in a physical form. For Spinoza, that ultimate "something" was "god sive nature", and he thought that Nature was eternal. But, of course, that was long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on that notion. :smile:

So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. — Gnomon
Transhumanist Theodicy — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't : create a system that gradually evolves toward a more perfect world? I'm not a card-carrying Transhumanist, but I see evidence that evolution is progressing upward, and that the rate-of-progress accelerated after rational creatures emerged. Of course, the glitch in that rosy scenario is the resistance of irrational creatures to change. :nerd:

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm. — TheMadFool

Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? :chin:

We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. — Gnomon
Well said! — TheMadFool

That was a reference to the "Power of Absence" mentioned in the Anthropic Principle thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10941/anthropic-principle-meets-consciousness

but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place! — TheMadFool

That's exactly why Pantheists and PanEnDeists equate G*D with Nature. As Spinoza concluded, "god sive nature" : god or nature, same thing -- no distinction. The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. Multiverse enthusiasts assume the latter, but they have no empirical evidence to support their faith in eternal Nature. :smile:

Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But are they predictable? And what does that have to do with the OP?

Regarding Non-linear Dynamic Systems, neuroscientist Terrence Deacon discusses the spooky phenomenon of "Strange Attractors" in chaotic systems. Those so-called "attractors" cause somewhat deterministic behaviors, but there is nothing there to cause the attraction. Deacon calls this "the power of absence". I interpret this natural feature in terms of evolution, which similarly seems to be drawn toward a future state that does not yet exist. As Deacon notes, most scientists are oblivious to the teleological signs in nature, probably because they prefer to think that the evolutionary system is doing a random walk instead of a purposeful deterministic march. :cool:


Strange Attractor :
In Chaos Theory and Dynamic Systems, a Strange Attractor is a mathematical value, or point in space, that seems to pull the elements of the system into warped orbits, like planets around the sun. What’s strange about these mathematical “objects” is that there is no mass at the center of orbit except a numerical value. Its “pull” is statistical instead of gravitational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

Power of Absence :
"A causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

Jacques Monod : "The central problem of biology is how could purposeful systems have emerged from a universe with no purpose?"

Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. :clap: — 180 Proof

Maybe. But you just hit one into the net. :joke:

Chaos is not randomness. — 180 Proof

That's a fact, Jack! And, as Banno said : "Natural selection is not random, nor chance". The Greeks vaguely understood that Nature was characterized by two opposing forces : Good vs Evil, Or, what we now call constructive Energy and destructive Entropy, or future-oriented Positive vs dead-end Negative. So Plato proposed a scenario -- based on intuition, not empirical science -- in which orderly Cosmos was organized from disorderly Chaos by divine Logos (reason). But, modern Chaos theorists have found that in every disorganized system there is a "seed" of hidden order. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the random element of evolution is offset to some degree by the non-random action of Natural Selection. Hence, it's the logical act of "selection" that extracts Order from within Disorder, and Cosmos from Chaos. That's also why Banno's terse epigram is a true statement. And your equally brief assertion is correct, but incomplete.

Therefore, we -- you and I, as philosophers -- need to complicate those succinct quips by asking "why"?. Why, and How, did increasing degrees of organization emerge from an inherently disorganized process of un-guided roiling atoms? Indeed, how could our organic world arise from such an un-promising beginning as a cosmic explosion (big bang) in nothingness?. As in the OP, how could Mind emerge from dumb Matter? Logically, there are only two explanations : A> the familiar creative system of laws we call "Nature" has always existed, eternally. Or B> some other mysterious creative Cosmic "entity" has always existed. So, which is the hidden creative "organizing force" in Nature that makes your statement a fact?

Since the Enlightenment, a hidden divinity is not a permissible solution to any mystery. So answer <A> is the preferred choice for most Materialists : matter naturally contains the hidden seeds of organization, and it has always repeatedly created baby universes for no particular reason. In which case, the hypothetical Multiverse is given most of the basic characteristics of a God : eternal, infinite, creative. But not the most important features for emerging order : Intelligence & Intention. Hence, the Multiverse creates its offspring via a blind, stochastic process of one accident after another, with no teleological direction at all. This seems to go counter to your assertion that Chaos is not really random, but has some hidden inherent tendency-toward-meaningful-order, that we know only by inference. Also to Banno's denial that evolution is a game of Chance. So, how does future-oriented Probablity arise from dis-oriented Randomness? Or how do those opposites harmonize? And how does the "Arrow of Time" emerge from directionless haphazard Change?

Considering those open questions, the OP query was not answered, but merely brushed-away with mis-direction. Wherefore then, the did the ordering and organizing principles of Nature originate? To say "they are innate", suggests a humanoid Mother Nature fostering and disciplining her beloved children. But the typical picture of the non-motherly Multiverse has no explanation for the emergence of Love & Hate, or any other "Intentional Stance" (consciousness) from the blind, random "confluence of atoms". If Nature is "not a game of chance", then it must be guided by some teleological intention. It's as if, Mother Nature nurtures aspirations for the future of her children. So, how do you explain why "Chaos is not Random"? Is somebody cheating? :joke:


Anthropic principle :
The anthropic principle is a group of principles attempting to determine how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in a particular type of universe to start with.[1] In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of sentient life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be fine tuned.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Hidden Order :
How Adaptation Builds Complexity
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order

Hidden Order in Chaos :
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/discover-the-hidden-order-in-chaos/

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 agency that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : "The creative impulse of Evolution"; "the power to enform"; "Logos"; "Directed Change".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? — 3017amen

Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.

If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.

The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:


Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation

How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? — 3017amen

Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.

If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.

The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:


Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation

Once you accept that mind is informational, then the question "How does matter relate to mind?" can be reformulated as two:
1. How does matter relate to information?
2. How does information relate to mind? — hypericin

My personal worldview is based on the Enformationism thesis, which postulates that Generic Information (generates all forms) is the "Universal Substance" (Spinoza) of the world. The thesis proposes a rationale that I call Pragmatic Idealism. The spark for this new way of thinking about Reality was a quantum scientist's startling comment about the sub-atomic particles he studied : "it's nothing but information". At the quantum scale, solid matter seems to be reduced to patterns of intangible-but-knowable (informative) mathematical ratios, such as velocity & position. So, what we perceive as real stuff is ultimately Ideal stuff. Since that first insight, I have been working on finding plausible answers to questions (1) & (2) without descending into spooky spirituality. :smile:

Universal Mind vs Universal Matter :
Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Appreciate your comments but the original post was more about shifting perspective on how we view what our 'being' is more broadly comprised of. I find it odd that some people belive that they have a distinct soul and spirit seperate to the body. — Brock Harding

As far back as the Egyptians, people have analyzed their "being" into various categories : Emotions, Personality, Essence, and Life Force. But Descartes boiled it all down to just two categories : physical Body and metaphysical Soul. This was, in part, a way for scientists to avoid addressing the "hard problem" of how Conscious Mind is related to Material Body. And it was an important "shift of perspective" that allowed empirical Science to flourish for centuries, without the encumbrance of Magical Thinking and Spooky Spiritualism.

But in the 21st century, Materialism began to founder on the shores of Quantum im-materialism. So, I think we are in the process of another "perspective" or paradigm shift -- to give scientists permission to get involved in questions that have been the proprietary purview of religions for eons.This will require taking philosophical Meta-physics seriously though, as it is the only aspect of Reality we know directly : our personal consciousness -- the realm of ideas (Idealism). :smile:

would you say that national identities play a much reduced role in contemporary times? — BigThoughtDropper

I'd like to say that. But the popularity of Donald Trump's ongoing "make America great again" crusade, seems to have revived some feelings of American Exceptionalism, and Identity Politics, among politically conservative citizens. One result of that "ad-campaign" form of Nationalism is renewed animosity toward immigrants, primarily from south of the border. Another sign of retreat into "us vs them" insular nationalism is the Brexit and Scottish Independence movements. The European Union began to reunite the fragmented nations of the old Roman Empire, that were even more divided by WWII, by making their borders more porous. Which allowed some progressives to think of themselves as Europeans, instead of French or German. But recent events, including an influx of middle-eastern immigrants, has stimulated some sentiment for Hitler's (make Germany great again) notion of a glorious national identity. Even in Russia, Putin recently warned against the rise of Nazi ideology, in a nation that was a victim of that same idealization of "Race, Land, and Conquest".

After WWII, the general political trend tended toward Liberalism, and Globalism. But the signs now say that Conservatism and Isolationism are on the rise again. But, I suppose that's just another symptom of Hegel's historical Dialectic, which swings back & forth between polar-opposite worldviews. Fortunately, the average political position is usually in the moderate range between those extremes. Therefore, like Hegel, I optimistically assume that the general upward trend of history (toward enlightenment) will continue, despite brief periods of regression toward Feudalism and Fascism. :cool:


The Dialectical Spirit of History :
Like most rational historians, and unlike many rational scientists, he assumed that the world was progressing in a particular direction, and for some good reason.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page32.html

In our globalised world where there are less and less linguistic and cultural barriers does it make sense to identify with our country of origin? — BigThoughtDropper

I suspect that, after WWII, national cohesion and jingoist patriotism began to wane. Now, former empires and sovereign nations seem to be fragmenting politically (US polarization, Brexit, Scottish independence). But, the "pale blue dot" image, and global communication provided by the Internet, may allow us to view ourselves as "citizens of the world" as opposed to the arbitrary boundaries of neighborhoods and nations. So, yes, it does make sense for us to expand our communities and loyalties to the whole world ecosystem. :smile:

The way I see it there can only be one of three possible structures to reality in regard to awareness, knowledge, truth and understanding: — Benj96

My general worlview agrees with (1) in that it is finite and knowable. But since the advent of Quantum Theory, (2) randomness is also characteristic of the world's structure. Although our "local" universe -- to distinguish from Multiverse and Many Worlds conjectures -- had a definite beginning in time, and an inevitable end of time. So, given time to explore -- not just our local world, but the solar system & beyond -- humans can expect to "Know" enough about reality to acquire a close approximation to "Truth".

Unfortunately, the quirks of quantum-scale reality seem to limit our understanding to only a fuzzy image of total Reality. So in my view (3) may be a "sour grapes" response to the frustration of an ultimate limit to our understanding, that makes absolute Truth unknowable. Therefore, we can either (A) frustrated by the randomness of reality, turn inward to meditate on our inner world, or (B) stop wasting time on circular philosophy, and just "shut-up and calculate". Or, (C) more sanguinely, continue to bravely explore the frontiers of the outer world, and of the inner mind. :cool:

If you think of the 'Soul Ideology' as referring to the mind then I guess you have an early iteration of psychology. — Brock Harding

I'm not an Egyptologist, but my impression is that they didn't have a concept of abstract "Mind", in the modern sense, as associated with the brain. Their Ib (heart) was the seat of visceral Emotions & Feelings, but not of Reason. Ba (personality) was the generator of characteristic behaviors. Sheut (shadow) was a sort of impersonal essence or identity. And Ka (life force) was the living soul that departs upon death. But none of them were directly related to Reasoning. I suppose the Greek philosophers pioneered the notion of abstract logical reasoning, as a way of thinking not motivated by knee-jerk impulses. Modern psychology (Rational Emotive Therapy) only recently began to focus the rational mind inwardly in order to gain control of unruly emotions, just as rational Science learned to control unruly Nature. :smile:

If you do some cursory google searches on Ancient Greek views of the soul and spirit you will quickly realise that early ideologies on the soul and spirit were merely an attempt to classify the mind which would have seemed an ethereal form in those days without informed science regarding brain function. — Brock Harding

The ancient Egyptians, who taught the Greeks a lot about spirituality and magic, associated the Soul with the human Heart, not the brain. They had no idea what the function of brain was (e.g. abstract reasoning), but the heart was clearly associated with Life and physical Emotions. Despite the "primitive" state of their physical science, they developed a sophisticated epistemology of the metaphysical Soul. Ironically, their ideology placed little value on the brain. So, when their Pharaohs were mummified, the brain was removed through the nose, perhaps because, like the guts, it quickly rotted after death. :smile:

Heart & Soul :
The ancient Egyptians believed that a soul (kꜣ/bꜣ; Egypt. pron. ka/ba) was made up of many parts. In addition to these components of the soul, there was the human body (called the ḥꜥ, occasionally a plural ḥꜥw, meaning approximately "sum of bodily parts").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul

Soul Ideology :
The ancient Egyptians believed the soul was divided into five parts Ren, Ba, Ka, Sheut, and Ib.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_concept_of_the_soul

As you have a mind you have a soul or spirit. By regarding the mind itself as a soul/spirit you can now revisit current theologies with a fresh perspective and the certainty that your soul/spirit is undeniably real and has always existed within you whatever your beliefs or doubts. — Brock Harding

The notion of "having" a mind, reminded me of Peter Pan, who "had" a shadow. Unfortunately, like some Souls, it kept wandering away from his body. So Peter, in order to control his unruly possession, tried to sew it onto his feet.

A lot of the confusion about Minds & Souls is due to the mistake of treating them as real physical objects that can be possessed (reification). Yet, Minds are not "undeniably real", but imaginatively Ideal. However, the metaphors we use to describe Minds & Souls are analogies to physical things. Which some people take literally. So, I prefer to think of the Mind as the metaphysical Function of the Brain. When the brain is processing information, it is Minding, or Thinking. Conceptual Functions and dynamic Processes are like fluids, and shadows, when you try to grasp them, they slip through your fingers. :joke:

Reification : to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).

And if both parties to the discussion were to have them, the initially neutral observer and listener would have to remain neutral, i.e. agnostic, at theend of the discussion as well. — spirit-salamander

It's difficult for humans to approach any momentous question "neutrally". Instead, most of us -- myself included -- rely on Motivated Reasoning in order to justify our prior beliefs. That's why Faith Systems are so hard to successfully argue against. But "rational" philosophers are supposed to be able to argue against their own (owned) beliefs, in order to weed-out the chaff. Unfortunately, formal belief systems -- like the Catholic Church -- have professional philosophers (Theologians) whose primary goal is to "defend the faith". And my own less-formal Protestant indoctrination relied on mostly un-trained Preachers to justify our peculiar set of beliefs, by "preaching to the choir". Ironically, long past the "age of reason", I realized that most of their sermons were based on Motivated Reasoning.

After my loss of faith, I called myself an Agnostic for many years. Since I had no better theory to explain the existence of this world -- the Multiverse hypothesis is a circular reason for being -- I couldn't reject the general creator-god-hypothesis out-of-hand. Yet, I also couldn't ignore the scientific evidence for a self-organizing universe, with no need for miraculous adjustments (outside intervention) to its course. Now, late in life, I do have a detailed personal theory of how (if not why) the world began in an act of creation, and how it self-organizes itself, in order to progress toward some unknown destination. So, the label "agnostic" no longer applies to me. But that doesn't make me a Theist or an Atheist. Instead my current appellation is "deist", and more specifically "PanEnDeist". Therefore, I rely on TPF posters to be neutral (or antagonistic) toward my worldview, in order to test my "faith". So far, they haven't converted me from the "error of my ways". But the "discussion" is not yet at an end, so there's still hope for enlightenment. :smile:

Motivated reasoning :
Motivated reasoning is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology that uses emotionally biased reasoning to produce justifications . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Do you know what the purpose of philosophy is? — Daniel Banyai

For me, the purpose of Philosophy (quest for wisdom) is to figure out what's wrong-with-the-world, in order to do something about it. Mis-using Nature is one of those "wrongs". And "self-immiserating" is another. Also, frustrated Desires is just one more of the many ways that our natural & cultural world fails to be a perfect home for thinking & feeling creatures. Unfortunately, most creatures don't have the means (Reason + hands) to actually change the world, and the self, for the better. Science (applied philosophy) is how we learn to make the natural world better. And Philosophy (introspection) is how we learn to make the Self better. :smile:

For example, there are some reliable accounts of telepathy, clairvoyant dreams, etc. that a strictly materialist view of the mind is unable to explain.This doesn't prove reincarnation but it suggests that our mind or consciousness is not necessarily limited to the physical body. — Apollodorus

My personal experience with "accounts" of life-after-death was the Christian doctrine of Resurrection. It had the same general effect as Reincarnation -- a second chance for Justice and Happiness -- but in a one-shot deal. No need to try over & over to get it right. And no need for "philosophical justification", because it was based on faith in "reliable accounts", by witnesses to Jesus' revival after a gruesome death. Eventually though, I concluded that the testimony of those obviously biased witnesses was not "reliable". That's because they had an ideology (belief-system) to sell, and "the advertisement spoke well of it".

Nevertheless, if I had to chose, the straight-to-heaven Resurrection sounds much better than the unpredictable results of rebirth, and the possibility to Reincarnate as an insect. The bottom line is that I don't put much stock in second-hand "accounts" and hear-say anecdotes about events that I have never observed in my own experience. So, I'm not living in anticipation of Reincarnation or Resurrection. If I wake-up after death in a new body, or a naked Soul, I'll just think "what a nice surprise". :cool:


Resurrection vs Reincarnation :
There is a great deal of “fuzziness of thinking” regarding death that many Christians hold besides reincarnation, Barstad added, such as believing that after death one dies and goes to heaven and stays there forever, rather than joining with their resurrected body at the end of time. . . .
“The vague notion that something called a soul or a spirit or a shade lingers after death in some kind of place or condition where it can be more or less happy is not Christian,” Barstad said. “A human soul without a body is a tragedy. . . .
Reincarnation is “irreconcilable with the Christian belief that a human person is a distinct being, who lives one life, for which he or she is fully responsible: this understanding of the person puts into question both responsibility and freedom,”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/39710/why-christians-believe-in-resurrection-not-reincarnation

Pythagoras or some other Greek philosopher went to Egypt in search of higher knowledge. — Apollodorus

You are probably correct that the historical origin of the Reincarnation hypothesis arose in some of the older civilizations. The Egyptians, and later the Babylonians, were considered the world-class experts on Magic & Mysticism -- the subjective "science" of their day. So, the mythical worldview that incorporated Reincarnation followed a chain of authority from "higher" cultures to "lower" societies. That may explain the "how" of cultural transmission of memes.

However, my psychological theory was focused on "why" such ideas emerged. Most likely, the theory of Reincarnation was not based on objective-empirical evidence, but on hypothetical reasoning from general theories -- gods & spirits & souls -- to more specific mechanisms for how those imaginary systems might work in their mystical realms, and how such otherworldly functions might impact humans in the real world.

Since Reincarnation is just one of many ancient spiritual-mystical theories of how the invisible world works, and the details of the soul-hopping process differ from one culture to another -- Egyptian, Hinduism, Buddhism -- those conjectures about the unseen realms seem to reflect the traditional meme-plexes (belief systems) of each culture, rather than any "higher knowledge" drawn from esoteric experiences in the spirit world. In other words, these stories (cultural myths) are fictional, not verifiable. But, of course, that's just my opinion, based on my lack of experience with spirits, or knowledge of arcane "secrets". :smile:

So much more exists in the brain than neuron synapsing. The analogy to a computer's electrical wiring is hugely inadequate. Investigating chemistry in the soma and glia will lead to a revolution in our model of brain structure. It will be key to comprehend the molecules involved in hallucinatory states, and define exactly how the additiveness of electromagnetic fields and further kinds of coherence fields with nanoscale, quantum entangled molecular complexes works. — Enrique

I doubt that the conscious Mind is literally an electro-magnetic field. If it was, we could easily learn how to read minds, just as we tune our radios to E-M frequencies. Energy fields can only be detected by their effects on matter; the field itself is invisible and intangible.

A "field" just a familiar physical concept that we can use as a metaphor for an immaterial function. For me the mind-field consists only of Information, imagined as a kind of energy. Energy is also not a material object, but an invisible matrix or pattern of mathematical relationships and ratios. So it's not necessarily the physical neurons or glia or cells or molecules that generate the mind-field, but more likely contributions from the whole body to the complex pattern of relationships, that can only be seen by the mind's eye. So far, scientists have found no way to detect mind-fields, if they indeed exist. The physical E-M analogy is a handy way to think about meta-physical minds. But it can be misleading if taken literally.

As far as we know, unlike Energy, individual minds have only local effects on the thinking subject, and no effect on material objects (psychokinesis). So, in order to communicate with other minds, we have to translate incorporeal thoughts into physical material objects that serve as symbols or proxies for immaterial ideas. But that real-world limitation doesn't stop people from trying to bend spoons with their minds, and imagining all kinds of mental powers, such as Chi -- which martial artists in video games use like laser beams to vanquish their simulated enemies. :cool:

I think there was a discussion on reincarnation some time ago. However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincinglyjustify it in philosophical terms? — Apollodorus

I'm not well read on the topic of Reincarnation, but I do have a general hypothesis for why the theory of body-hopping souls arose among philosophers & sages concerned with Ethics. Almost all cultures on Earth have devised some explanation for the inequalities and injustices of the world : The Problem of Evil. For example, ancient Greek cultures were feudal societies. "As above, so below" : they typically assumed that humans were like slaves or servants to their feudal Lords in heaven. In that case, humans were subject to the mercurial whims of their whip-wielding slave-owners, and free-will was a pathetic illusion of the downtrodden. So, the Greeks, both slaves & lords, tended to be fatalistic, and/or pessimistic, about their long-term future prospects, and held no hope for any afterlife beyond the grave. Thus, they saw no reason to expect personal justice in this life or any other. Those "typical" Greeks also tended to be materialistic & deterministic about the mechanics of the world, in which humans were mere grinding cogs.

However, atypical idealistic philosophers -- most of whom were independent-minded upper-class slave-owners themselves --could hold a more optimistic worldview, in which personal freewill could alter the course of Fate to some degree. Also, their god-models were more abstract -- more like general principles than specific persons. As leaders of society themselves, this allowed them to have more individual influence on the course of events. Plus, they believed that humans had individual personalized Souls, instead of the generic animating force of ancient Animism. Therefore, it made sense that, since even these leaders of men were subject to fatal forces beyond their control, their world was still characterized by injustice. Which contradicts the Platonic notion of God as the eternal epitome of Goodness. Yet, even if the gods were not powerful enough to fight Fate, they could conceivably give their human subjects a second chance in an afterlife.

So, my theory is that Plato's principle of Reincarnation was an attempt to justify the goodness and justice of the gods, despite all the evidence against it in the real world. If at first you don't have a life of peace & justice, just try-try again in a series of after-lives. Originally, the Hebrews also seemed to believe in arbitrary Fatalism, and the finality of the grave. But that didn't fit their image of Yahweh as a loving father. Consequently, like the Greek philosophers, Jewish thinkers gradually came to believe that the cruelties of reality were not the intention of God for his beloved creation. But his best intentions were countered by his old nemesis : Satan. So, as a compromise, God made arrangements for postmortem Justice, not in a series of reincarnations, but in one triumphant victory over the evil god of fickle Fate.

Unfortunately, both of these solutions to the Problem of Evil depend on Faith in future Justice, instead of the blessed experience of Justice in the Here & Now. For those of little faith though, "justice delayed is justice denied". :sad:


Gods subject to Fate :
Whereas the Hebrews blamed humanity for bringing disorder to God's harmoniously ordered universe, the Greeks conceived their gods as an expression of the disorder of the world and its uncontrollable forces. To the Greeks, morality is a human invention; and though Zeus is the most powerful of their gods, even he can be resisted by his fellow Olympians and must bow to the mysterious power of fate.
https://www.auburn.wednet.edu/cms/lib03/WA01001938/Centricity/Domain/2205/Fate%20reading.pdf

In the opening of Paradise Lost, Milton invokes his Muse, the Holy Spirit, to grant him “Eternal Providence” that he may achieve his goal for the epic: to “justify the ways of God to men”

"Job also had an unquenchable thirst for God in the midst of his sufferings. His friends were troublesome enemies and his tears were his food day and night. He longed for God's justice in his suffering. He realized he needed more than a therapeutic God and gospel. He longed for deliverance from his pain, as well as assurance of his reconciliation with God. This is what sets the stage for Job's lamentations, a yearning for God's mercy and justice."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_don/job/whirlwind08.cfm

Justice delayed is justice denied. ___William E. Gladstone

Thanks for the tips. Most here seem somewhat "hostile" to the idea that consciousness or the mental might be related to a physical field in perhaps only a remote sense. To me, the connection of the two is forward-looking and promising. — spirit-salamander

I suspect that scientist's "hostility" to the notion of a Mind Field, that might extend beyond the brain or body, is due to its similarity to New Age notions of Consciousness as something like a radio signal that the brain tunes-in to. But, McFadden himself noted that the neuron fields he studies have a very short range from the emitter. So his theory may not provide much support for those who believe in Mind-Reading and remote Mind Control. Elon Musk's Neuralink technology is still quite primitive and clunky, compared to Mr. Spock's Mind Meld. :smile:

Mind Field :
In a circa-2002 publication of The Journal of Consciousness Studies, the electromagnetic theory of consciousness faced an uphill battle for acceptance among cognitive scientists. Scientific study of consciousness has only recently begun to gain acceptance as a legitimate scientific discipline, and some think field theories like McFadden's are unscientific beliefs that threaten their hard-won legitimacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

Neuralink :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1nDo8KYozU

Ahhh, could not be further from the truth! Much like time itself, metaphysics is not so neet and tidy. ☺ You may want to review the video... — 3017amen

Apparently you missed the point of my post. I said Tim Wood's Physical worldview was "neat & tidy". So the implication was that your Metaphysical view is just the opposite : complex & messy. Most scientists, including Einstein & Heisenberg, were at first appalled at the strange worldview presented by Quantum "Mechanics". Because it's actually not very mechanical at all.

Nevertheless, some of then learned to accommodate "quantum queerness" by viewing it from the metaphysical perspective of Eastern philosophies. Unfortunately, many New Agers preferred the traditional religious physical practices (Yoga Tai Chi, candles, incense), over the metaphysical philosophical insights. Apparently most people prefer neat & tidy physical routines over the complexities & ambiguities of Metaphysics --- and of Quantum uncertainties & weirdness. :joke:

Hello Mr. Wood:
Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. If my experiences are made of nothing (as you seem to be implying), are you suggesting some sort of metaphysical reality instead? — 3017amen

Like a breath of fresh air, after the stifling atmosphere of circular philosophical argumentation, I enjoy the clear-eyed views of Tim Wood's terse, and often acerbic, contributions to this forum. His adamant Atheism (Scientism?) simplifies the world into "what matters" (Materialism) and "what doesn't matter" (Metaphysics). That neat & tidy Black & White worldview allows him to make concise & emphatic comments on the ambiguous & equivocal concepts that frivolous philosophers concern themselves with.

But in the early 20th century, such Classical scientific clarity was muddied by Quantum queerness. That's why the no-nonsense physicist Richard Feynman expressed his negative attitude toward wishy-washy Philosophy in a curt statement of frustration : "shut-up and calculate". But other quantum pioneers, such as Heisenberg, accepted the challenge of their baffling "facts", and attempted to reconcile their ambiguous quantum calculations with the mysticism of Eastern Philosophy. In doing so, they inadvertently crossed the line between "serious" science and "trivial" philosophy. And that line in the sand becomes fainter after every wave of speculation into metaphysics. God help us! :cool:

Quantum mysticism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

PS__As an amateur philosopher, I don't claim to be doing hard science, but merely playfully exploring the remaining mysteries that have not yet succumbed to the sharp-edged scalpel of reductionism. So, please continue asking your questions about "nothing". :joke:

If one wants to hold on to a naturalistic world view, one must assign consciousness either to matter or to a field. — spirit-salamander

My own personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is intended to be naturalistic, except that it requires a conscious First Cause, which existed prior to the Big Bang beginning of our world -- hence super-natural, or meta-natural, or preter-natural. It's merely a layman's thesis, proposing an evolutionary process to explain how Life & Mind could emerge from the physical interactions of fundamental particles or substances. In that theory, the fundamental substance of reality is Information (EnFormAction), which occurs in both tangible physical (matter) & intangible meta-physical (energy) forms.

Recently I came across a novel theory postulated by Johnjoe McFadden, professor of Quantum Biology & Molecular Genetics. He calls it Conscious Electromagnetic Information (cemi), and it seems to fit neatly into my hypothesis of the origin of Consciousness via natural processes. I'm pretty sure this CEMI theory is also currently in the hypothetical stage, but it should allow for some empirical verification. And it also appears to be be compatible with Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (I.I.T.). So, it looks like these professional conjectures are on the same track with your notion of the "mind as a physical field". However, I suspect that the "Mind Field" would have some different properties & effects from the various "energy fields" of Physics, including the well-known Magnetic & Electromagnetic Fields. :smile:

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness :
McFadden has proposed that the brain's electromagnetic field creates a representation of the information in the neurons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html