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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHICH PATTERN IS ORDERED AND MEANINGFUL???


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).

:chin: While philosophers argue about free will, the legal system and the legislature are busy laying down laws, really restritions on our free will, regulating our options. WTF? — Agent Smith

Individually, the freedom to do as you please is a good idea. But collectively, that would result in chaos and conflict. So, in politics, and in internet interrelationships, some restrictions on freedom are necessary to avoid a bloody free-for-all.

The lone wolf is free to do as he pleases, but in a pack, he is just one willful agent among many. A pack of wolves is successful to the extent that it has a harmonious collective will, typically embodied in the wisdom of an experienced leader. Currently, the internet seems to be leaderless. So, it's every wolf for himself. Which is why each website must make and enforce its own rules for permitted participation in a collective endeavor.

Over time, those local rules seem to be merging toward a general consensus of what behaviors are permitted, and which forbidden, and which violations can be overlooked. That's how a Democracy can function only with a division of powers : law-makers, law enforcers, and a general consensus Constitution -- interpreted by wise elders. So, maybe the World-Wide-Web Democracy needs a high court to resolve internal disputes --- but elected or appointed? Hmmmm?. :chin:


"See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little."
___Pope John XXIII

Limited Democracy :
definition: a form of government in which the power of the people is limited to the parameters of a constitution.

As long as democracy, capitalism, socialism, fascism are taken to denote abstract ideals nothing will destroy them — neomac

Yes. "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come" ---Victor Hugo. And all of those political ideals have had their "time", but have come and gone, and come again. During the 1950s Red Scare, campaign against communism, presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, responded to the proposal to outlaw Communism with, "you can't shoot an idea with a gun". Consequently, he was labeled as "soft on Communism". Likewise, the original notion of a free exchange of ideas on the Internet was intended to "destroy" censorship, and government regulation. But the necessity for limits on freedom is another idea, whose time is always with us. :meh:

Please help me understand this article. Is it implying that assuming dualism is a possibility that all science must be false in order for that to be the case? — TiredThinker

FWIW, I interpret Dualism, not as Matter & Spirit, but as Physical & Meta-Physical (or Menta-Physical). I make that distinction because the Mental aspects of Reality are emergent & subjective Qualia from the elemental & objective Quanta. Modern Science was deliberately divorced from ancient notions of non-physical essences. But both modern Quantum Theory and Information Theory have revived the necessity for dealing with concepts that are not physical objects, such as "virtual particles" and "memes".

However, I don't view them as fundamentally separate classes of reality. Instead I take a BothAnd perspective, which proposes essential & causal Information (the power to enform) for the fundamental "substance", as proposed by Spinoza and Aristotle, among other philosophers. From that Monistic perspective, I have derived a personal worldview for both Science and Philosophy for the 21st century.

Since, the essential substance of the real world (Information : EnFormAction) is closer to invisible Energy than to tangible Matter, I can make sense of problems inherent to both Dualism and Materialistic Monism. But that worldview is Agnostic about the post-death state of the abstract process we call "Life". We have no evidence upon which to base such speculations, except for unverifiable anecdotal (so you say) reports that can be interpreted in various ways.

Consequently, I think EnFormAction (like Energy) must be eternal. But Life is inherently temporal. Therefore, I'm not counting on a traditional afterlife. But, I can't absolutely rule out some afterdeath continuation of personal data (Information) -- perhaps "virtual" life?? :cool:


Qualia : Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

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.

↪Gnomon
I really appreciate the information you shared about the Trinity. I would be more interested in attending a church that presents such information instead of lessons for being good children based on fiction instead of math and science. — Athena

Persistent controversies over technicalities of Roman Catholic dogma may be interesting to Theologians and Philosophers, who like to argue over fine distinctions. But to the man or woman on the street, the Trinity concept may be accepted as Gospel, but understood as Metaphor.

As legal terminology, "The Trinity" allowed the church to reconcile incompatible literal meanings (Monotheism vs Polytheism) by the indisputable power of faith in inspired church authority. To say that 3=1 does not compute mathematically. But as a religious notion, it works mystically.

Likewise, in a practical sense, the bread (or host) of the sacrament is just baked dough. But as a mystical symbol it combines the mundane notion of eating bread with the sublime imagery of the apparent physical body on a cross, which is secretly only a vessel (host) for a supernatural spirit. Even philosophers cannot argue with poetic figures of speech. :joke:

PS__I was raised in a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist church that did not accept add-on Catholic doctrines such as Trinity & Saints & Christmas. Ironically, some of us still celebrated Christmas, as a semi-secular holiday. So, I was always conflicted on that "holy day". With one crucial exception, our teachings were logical and subject to evidence. But the only true source of that evidence was a collection of ancient "scriptures", that were later compiled by the very church whose authority we rejected. :yikes:

. Today's believers have a whole different understanding of God and Satan because the condition of our lives is so different. — Athena

Ironically, the Christian Trinity omits a significant deity from Old Testament : Satan. Originally, he was a heavenly prince, whose job was to serve as legal prosecutor in God's dealings with humans (including the temptation of Jesus in the desert). By contrast, the Holy Spirit was basically a messenger boy, who unlike an Angel, didn't take on human form.

The Roman Christians didn't have a name for the abstract concept of "four" (only a symbol : IV). But they could have used the Greek word "tessera" to describe a four-in-one deity : the Holy Tesseract. The Hindu pantheon included both good and evil gods. For example demonic Kali, who was the 10th avatar of Vishnu. What's the name for a 10-in-one deity? :cool:

But ‘determined’s opposite is an impossible currency. — PoeticUniverse

Fortunately for us humans, Self-Determination is not the "opposite" of Determinism, but a "complement" (complete-ment). The output of a complex system is not the same as the input. The system re-arranges the incoming energy/information into novel forms and meanings. Most important of those novelties is a meaningful relationship to Self (observer). Meaning is not a natural "currency", it is a preter-natural evaluation. Nature is indifferent to me. But my personal meanings & beliefs are the "difference that makes a difference" (i.e. Information). :smile:

PS__Thanks for your challenging responses. They inspire new ways to view stale ideas.

Complement : 1 : something that makes whole or better
i.e. the je ne sais quoi (qualia) that makes a random collection into a functional integrated holistic system

I don't think anyone is saying the sensory inputs make for the whole of the will's analysis. There's lots more going on, plus rumination is a feedback loop. — PoeticUniverse

By "sensory inputs" I was referring to causes or influences from the environment. It was meant to distinguish linear causes from internal processing (ruminations) that form "feedback loops". Those non-linear processes modify the incoming ambient "energy" for the specific needs of the Self. Such internal looping is what I call "multiplying" and "complexifying" of extrinsic Information, to temporarily re-direct the flow for personal use.

That Selfish energy is what we call "Will", which is the motivation to get what we want and need. "Will" being merely the future tense of "Want". So the redirected or recycled Information/Energy is "free" in the sense that it is no longer completely extrinsically determined, but has an added Selfish purpose. Ambient Information/Energy has no purpose, but egocentric causation has the novel property of goal-directed Intention.. :smile:

PS__We are still subject to the tidal flow of energy, but unlike an Iceberg, we have an inboard motor to allow us to go against the flow . . . to some degree.

And for whatever it maybe worth people who had NDEs often report a more real reality. Any psychologically people here? Is there a reason why the mind would create such a thing, and how exactly could it? — TiredThinker

Yes. Brains on hallucinogenic drugs create imaginary realities that seem more real than mundane materiality. The "could" is easy to answer : the brain produces it's own chemicals to adjust its reactions to perceptions (e.g. endorphins ; opioids). But the street drugs merely exaggerate those normal effects. Sometimes the distorted feelings may feel heavenly, but they may also seem hellish . Take the drug, take your chances.

As, to "why" the brain would release abnormal amounts of those intrinsic neurotransmitters, when it detects signs (stress hormones??) of impending death, many NDE researchers are still looking for the answer. But most assume that it may have some last-ditch self-protection purpose. Why does consciousness black-out when you get hit on the head? Perhaps that allows you to roll with the punch. I don't know. :cool:

Hallucinogens are a diverse group of drugs that alter a person’s awareness of their surroundings as well as their own thoughts and feelings. They are commonly split into two categories: classic hallucinogens (such as LSD) and dissociative drugs (such as PCP). Both types of hallucinogens can cause hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
Note -- drug addicts and NDE survivors typically wake-up to the same old sh*tty reality as before.But if the effect makes a deep impression, it may lead to changes in lifestyle. Maybe to quit sinning, or to get off the drug.

On this basis it is reasonable to conclude that "what we normally see" is more useful for reasoning about the true nature of reality than what we see on drugs.
https://www.quora.com/If-drugs-can-alter-the-way-we-perceive-reality-how-can-we-be-sure-that-what-we-normally-see-is-the-absolute-reality

Illusion. "More than" hasn't been found. — PoeticUniverse

In my blog, I hypothesize that the "more than" is a holistic effect of causal feedback loops, and the consequent complexification-of-causation. The result of that multiplication is a holistic Cybernetic system, that is more than the sum of sensory inputs. Such a complex integrated system may have novel properties (e.g. awareness) that are not found in its parts (e.g. neurons). Those internal loops in the chain of causation, might even permit Self-Causation (autonomy, freedom).

If so, the Feeling of Freedom is not an external illusion, but an internal belief -- that's just as real as your mental model of the real world. Of course, this is a conjecture based on implications of a few brain studies. And, since the feeling is subjective, there is no objective proof that it is anything more than an illusion. So, it's true that the "more than" has not been found . . . by those looking at neuronal wiring diagrams.

However, there's also no way to empirically prove that you are Conscious, except to ask you to affirm your awareness. Likewise, if you believe you are free, you will act as-if you are in control. So, as street philosopher Dirty Harry so perceptively inquired, "you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky free? Well, do ya, punk?". :grimace:

Cybernetic System :
Cybernetics is the study of control, communications and information processing within systems of all kind, biological, mechanical and social. Norbert Wiener(one of the founders of the subject) defined cybernetics as “the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine.”[1] The word cybernetics comes from Greek word meaning “governance” or “to steer, navigate or govern”. Cybernetics formed out of – and is closely related to – the areas of systems theory, information theory, computer science, robotics, mechanical and electrical engineering. The primary object of study within cybernetics are control systems that are regulated by negative feedback loops.[2]
https://www.systemsinnovation.io/post/cybernetics
Note -- Feedback loops are used in Robotics to allow for Self-Control. So, wouldn't feedback in a human mind allow for intrinsic Self-Governance, without the necessity for extrinsic control inputs? A cybernetic organism is not free from physical laws, but from external mind-control (unless brain-washed, of course).

Feedback Loops :
The human brain is a negative feedback loop system. This means that whenever there is a difference between what a person experiences in reality that is different from the ideal set point established by this person’s brain, an urge to behave to correct the situation is created by the brain. https://www.funderstanding.com/brain/brain-biology-a-negative-feedback-loop-system/ [my bold]

Every Effect has a Cause, but not all causes come from the environment. When faced with an incongruency, humans are able to "leap" to a conclusion that seems reasonable, in light of our prior beliefs of what ought to be true. So, what seems reasonable is not just pure Logic, but can also be determined by any prejudices, premises, and presumptions in our belief system. Those inner beliefs are not in any sense physical objects. Instead, they are meta-physical causes of our mental behavior. You might say that beliefs are indirect motives of behavior (emotions, feelings), because they result from feedback loops in the chain of incoming information. Those information loops add to the complexity of a simple linear cause & effect system. But out of the apparent chaos comes the novel (butterfly) effect that we call "Free Will". The proof of the freewill pudding is in the effects of your voluntary actions. :nerd:

I've always felt in charge, and that seems to have added to the pleasure. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but is that feeling of being in control of your life a truism or an illusion? That is the underlying question of this thread. The arguments typically come down to siding with Science or Religion. And most world religions, especially Christianity, make human Free Will mandatory, to govern a God who holds us responsible for our ethical behavior. Since, modern Science has demoted Freedom of Will to a "persistent illusion", it would seem that morality is optional. Unless, they can find a viable substitute for an intrinsic feeling of responsibility.

Secular Humanism has rejected the universal lawmaker, and placed the burden of maintaining order -- among people who feel free to sin -- on mundane, politically divided Society. Which typically relies on fear of temporary incarceration instead of eternal incineration. Therefore, it seems that even without an all-seeing eye-in-the-sky, our sense of freedom must still be constrained by extrinsic rules, and menacing threats. So, is man-made morality more Just than just fear of divine retribution? And is Free Will compatible with the restraints of social responsibility? :cool:

"The idea of free will, the skeptics say, is a holdover from a naïve worldview that has been refuted by science, just as ghosts and spirits have been refuted."
https://bostonreview.net/articles/christian-list-has-science-refuted-free-will/

"if you are in charge, you have control over someone or something and are responsible for them."
https://www.macmillandictionary.com

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." ___Francis Crick,
Note -- if Free Will is innate, what is the "more than" which makes a mere network of neurons to be free from the Determinism of Causation? Perhaps, rational moral agents have become a Cause unto themselves, resulting in the freedom of Self-determinism. :chin:

Interesting but what about memory impairment associated with depression and trauma. These have been documented or so I'm told. Funnily, this doesn't seem to happen with emotions at the other extreme (euphoria, ecstacy) or does it? — Agent Smith

I haven't made a study of memory enhancement and impairment. But my general impression is that depression is associated with hormone imbalance, causing overall mood level to go downward from the baseline. That would also tend to diminish the "fixing" of memories. And presumably euphoria would do just the opposite --- up to a point of diminishing returns. If you are interested, you might Google "bipolar studies memory", to see if remembrance matches the mood swings. It's possible that too much of a hormone could be as bad for memory establishment as too little. :sad:

"Studies report that some people with bipolar disorder have complained of memory impairment during high moods, low moods, and at times in between."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314328

So, we've arrived at an apophatic understanding - thoughts are not necessarily about logical connections! Now what? — Agent Smith

Like dogs, associations with taste & smell may help humans to embed memories. But, for optimum memorizing, we should aim for the sweet spot between the extremes of emotion. Unfortunately my typical bland mid-range mood doesn't seem to result in a good memory. So, I guess my baseline is already on the low end. :smile:

What you find most interesting is what you will mostly remember.



“But when from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, taste and smell alone, more fragile but more enduring, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, remain poised a long time, like souls, remembering, waiting, hoping, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unflinchingly, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection. And as soon as”
― Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past: Swann's Way & Within a Budding Grove: 1

Be here now: One must become the change one seeks. — 180 Proof

Yes, but Ghandi was more motivated to extend his reach to his whole nation. And it worked! But, was that change of direction due to his Free Will choices, or to the accidents of Fate? Obviously those who stick their necks out are highly motivated to change, not just themselves, but their recalcitrant world.

As a fated intovert, I lack such deep feeling and passionate drive. So, I'm more content to just "be here now", and to reach-out and touch only those within arm's reach. That's why I post on safe forums instead of marching in the streets. :smile:

Given the current state of humanity's failure to effectively remediate anthropogenic climate change, we can't even "terra-form" Earth ... I'm less "confident", Gnomon, — 180 Proof

I'm not supremely confident. But I'm also not discouraged by the doom & gloom of modern media gossip. Instead, I am encouraged by the incremental progressive steps that are often overlooked by the "nattering nabobs of negativity". (pace Spiro Agnew)

One minor example is Elon Musk's entrepreneurial optimism to put the idealistic Green Movement into practice -- on Earth with zero-carbon cars, and perhaps someday on Mars with recyclable rockets. He has made environmentalism profitable and newsworthy, by building on the more modest efforts of tree-huggers.

Just as Ghandi's humble persistence had an impact on colonialism and minority politics, there are always a few sanguine heroes to push the world forward and upward. Sadly, many of those leaders pay for their pushiness with their lives. Inertia is inherent in the world, but Impetus is also. :cool:

3. Emotional connections (Off the top of my head). — Agent Smith

Yes. We like to think that our thought processes are rigidly rational, but as Hume noted, more often than not, our reasoning is in service of our "passions". Typically, the link between a fact and its meaning is it's emotional significance. That's because memories are more likely to be stored in the brain when synapses are "influenced" by emotions. Events that arouse no emotions are quickly forgotten. Apparently, the neurotransmitters and hormones react to potential positive or negative effects on Me. Opportunities for sex or harm, are more likely to make an impression on memory, and subsequent thoughts, than irrelevant abstractions. So, my answer is no --- it is not only logical connections between ideas that reveal truth/sense/reality. Any more questions? :smile:

This review describes the evidence of modulation of memory and synaptic plasticity produced by emotional arousal, stress hormones, and . . .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652299/

Cite the offense I've given. I'm sure you've misread me again, Gnomon. — 180 Proof

I don't remember. Apparently, you've mis-read me. I don't take offense at the occasional "pissy" attitudes on this forum. I just can't take philosophical speculations into the unknown that seriously. It should be a fun tug-of-war without the warlike grimness. But, I'm aware that some posters are more rigid & fragile than me, so I use smilies and emoticons liberally, to indicate that I mean no harm, and in many cases I'm just kidding. Seriously! :joke:


Pissy : arrogantly argumentative.

I turned 74 today and have had good luck so far; the world can't seem to kill me off, — PoeticUniverse

Like you, I'm a seventh decade survivor of a world that has a million ways to kill you. I even lived through 4 years in and around VietNam. So, instead of feeling picked-on by Fate, I feel blessed by the freedom to choose my poison --- a very slow one. :wink:

Sabine Hossenfelder has been espousing Super Determinism of late, if you want to look into it, and so here we are, between its specter and the escape as the randomness option, of all the binds and rocks and hard places to be in… — PoeticUniverse

Thanks, but I'd rather not stare into the abyss of Deep Determinism. Anyway, I don't depend on erratic randomness to spring me from the inevitability of Cause & Effect. Instead, I'm always on the lookout for those tiny cracks in my dungeon that give me an opportunity to choose to use a spoon to widen them into an escape hole --- or rabbit hole (look before you leap!). Since those openings are rare, we must be ready to take advantage of every break from Fate we can get. :grimace:
Note : I googled SD, and saw that it's over my pointy little head.

Back on the topic of Free Choice -- Free Will :
I'm currently reading a novel, Ken Follett's Third Twin, that involves scientists doing twin studies to determine how much Genetics and Society (Nature & Nurture) are responsible for our personal behavior. I'm guessing that they will eventually get around to discovering how unpredictable personality quirks can emerge from those more mechanistic influences. Some identical twins display unique traits that can't be explained by genetic determinism. Could it be . . . oh I don't know . . . maybe . . . Free Will? :smile:

"Although the case for free will cannot be rigorously proven, those of us who believe in it need feel no threat from the findings of the Human Genome Initiative."
https://counterbalance.org/genetics/myth-body.html

Twins: similar and unique? :
https://www.leidenpsychologyblog.nl/articles/twins-similar-and-unique

so this kind of ‘free’ is not adding anything extra to the regular will, since mechanisms like the will are already free to operate. — PoeticUniverse

I get the impression that you are still reacting to a definition of "free will" that I am not espousing. I specifically stated that the "freedom" I'm talking about is "limited". Which, I would think, should fit your definition of "regular" will. Except, there may be some minor distinction that I'm missing. :brow:

Note that this diametric is orthogonal to the other axis—that of a fixed will dependent on what one has become up to the moment versus a non-fixed (free?) will not depending on anything, if one still wants that in order to be ‘free’ (‘twould be a mess—not anything could function). — PoeticUniverse

I'm not familiar with the notion of "fixed" versus "free" willpower. I Googled "fixed will" and got no applicable links. So, I suppose you have your own personal definition of the term. I"d like to hear how you would distinguish between my notion of "limited FreeWill" and your "fixed Will". On the face of it, "fixed" sounds pretty final, and not very desirable. I have been using the common phrase "Free Will" in the usual philosophical sense of Agency as noted below. To me, that definition sounds more like "limited" than "fixed". :chin:

Agency :
The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking. — PoeticUniverse

That may be true, but randomness also breaks the chain of Cause & Effect with an Acausal link. It's that gap in causation that may provide a way to escape from the bonds of Determinism. But, it takes intelligence and reasoning ability to take advantage of the opportunity of arbitrariness in place of necessity. :smile:

“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

The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. — PoeticUniverse

By "fixation" are you talking about "self-deception"? If so, I must agree. But philosophically-inclined people should be open to self-examination to weed-out false beliefs. And yet, on this forum, we still find "fixations" that are resistant to criticism. And a common issue raised in Free Will topics concerns whether the freedom of agency is a self-deceptive illusion. But I don't know any sane person who believes he is free to jump off a tall building with impunity. If some do feel that free, they certainly require some "deprogramming". For the record, I'm not talking about such extreme cases, but about examples of "regular will". :wink:

As for Super Determinism, this is just determination all the way through, with no 'random'. . . . .2. The quantum particle measurements ending in probabilities may be… — PoeticUniverse

I'm not clear on whether you were arguing from a "pro" or "con" position. But FWIW, I don't depend on the weirdness of quantum randomness to open the door to freedom of the Will. The warm, wet brain does not seem amenable to Superposition. On the macro level of human behavior, the quantum randomness averages-out to the familiar Cause & Effect, that we rely on as we make our Choices. It's more telling that our notion of Necessity is a general assumption, not an empirical fact. Even hard-nosed scientists are aware of the vagaries of reality, so they don't assume "Super-Determinism", but merely Mundane Regularity. :cool:

"Although the intuition that our mind chooses its actions 'at will' begs for an explanation, quantum physics is no solution" ___Stanislas Dehaene

"He who says all things happen of necessity cannot criticize another who says that not all things happen of necessity. For he has to admit that the assertion also happens of necessity."
___Epicurus

PS___ Since Consciousness and WillPower are subjective, ultimately what counts is not objective evidence, but that you feel free. If not, your outlook may be clouded by the bitterness of desires frustrated by Fate. If, however, you don't feel free, then no evidence or argument will convince you otherwise. So, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood : "do you feel free, punk?" :joke:

PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon
As I quoted you previously,
"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — 180 Proof

You are quick to take offense at generic statements, and also quick to make specific offensive assertions. But I just shrug-off such accusations as :

A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed — 180 Proof

But that's OK with me, as long as we keep dialoging. I learn from both positive and negative arguments. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to philosophical questions. But your conclusions seem much gloomier than mine. To each his own . . . :smile:

"The examined life", thereby, consists in reasoning to better, more probitive, questions about 'proximate concerns' in the context – framework – of reasoning to better, more probitive, questions about 'ultimate concerns', and, IMO, by reflectively living, the Understanding (re: lucidity which regulates judgment and conduct) – in contrast to Knowledge (i.e. 'good explanations' for matters of fact) – flourishes, or gradually is optimized. — 180 Proof

This notion raises the old contentious existential question of Free Will. If "the examined life" looks both within (reflectively) and without (objectively), as navel-gazing philosophers, should we be content to merely "optimize" our personal worldview (facticity??). Or as enlightened examiners, are we morally compelled to attempt to "optimize" the world around us?

As an introvert (by fate, not choice), I am not motivated to "tilt at windmills" or to devote my life to changing the course of the whole world. But I do feel obligated to improve the tiny part of the world that is within my reach. And my examination reveals that I am not alone in that notion of limited optimization. So I feel confident that, over time, humanity will make the world a better place --- even if we have to terra-form Mars to do it. :cool:

Facticity :
"Facticity plays a key part in Quentin Meillassoux's philosophical project to challenge the thought-world relationship of correlationism. Meillassoux defines it as “the absence of reason for any reality"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facticity

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
___Karl Marx -- after examining the bleak lives of working class Europeans
Note -- although his ambitious project has failed to create a proletarian utopia in our time, it has dramatically changed the general attitude toward heredity & hierarchy, and of meekly accepting the status quo of the lower classes. Along with Democracy, Socialism has upgraded the lives of peons and peasants around the world. Of course, major social evolution take mucho time. So, as experience has demonstrated, Utopia can't be built in a day, and one pyramid took 20,000 men a lifetime. :confused:

I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. — 180 Proof

I wasn't trying to put sweet "bon mots" in your mouth (or any other orifice) ; just noting a common saying intended to justify being resigned to remain in a static state of willful ignorance. Are you "woke" to the reality of cognizance? :cool:
PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? Are you accusing me of projecting my own blindness onto you? "Let he who is without ignorance cast the first bon mot" :joke:

The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance. — 180 Proof

Where you are free to choose to focus your attention on the negative space of "intrinsic ignorance", I opt to aim my frame at the positive potential of self-enformation (selective education). Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.

Whatever lies beyond the limited scope of the human mind may be "Intrinsic Ignorance", and some may choose to remain mired in "willful ignorance", but those of us on this forum are blessed with the innate human power of Reason : the power to choose the path to Enlightenment, either within or without. :nerd:

TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU

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: