I'm agnostic on the existence of a deity for reasons this thread will elucidate. But while previously I was rather agnostic about merely a creative force behind our existence, I am now somewhat interested in a teleological reason for our existence, one that derives from a "creator". — Jerry

You may not get a lot of sympathy, on this forum, for your apostasy from atheism to deism. But I too, went from a Theistic childhood, to an Agnostic adolescence, and finally to a Deistic senescence. I don't have any divine revelations to rely on, but I do have some rational reasoning to support the idea that an Aristotelian First Cause, of some kind. is necessary to explain the contingent existence of our universe, and its questioning creatures. :smile:

Why when animals are able to form order and organisation without this does the human stand alone. — David S

Mythically, the root of human ethics is in the freedom to choose what seems to be in the ego's best interest, without regard for the interests of the whole ecosystem. That's how mammal's evolved-over-eons innate-Emotional-directives are subject to being over-ridden by homo sapiens' still naive Reason, based on local & limited information. It's the ago-old conundrum of Nature versus Culture. And it's why we have to use that same rational faculty to get us out of the tight-spots that it previously got us into. :cool:

The links below compare the notion of the "neural correlates of Mind" with the filamentous structure of the material universe. Some others have proposed that the universe is actually the brain of God. I don't take it too seriously, or literally. It's just philosophical candy for musing & chewing. :grin:

Neural Correlates of Cosmos :
https://nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/the-strange-similarity-of-neuron-and-galaxy-networks
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/neuron-web-in-human-brain-is-similar-to-the-network-of-galaxies-in-the-universe-9034231.html

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems.
— Pop
That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships" — Gnomon
I'm glad we have a similar in outlook. — Pop

The book I'm currently reading, about The Anthropic Principle, frequently uses the words "crux" and "crucial". The metaphorical reference is to the point where paths cross and change occurs ( a coincidence). Which is also where "interaction" occurs, and where we "see" inter-relationships with the mind's eye of Reason. One example might be isolated sub-atomic particles that come together (accidentally or coincidentally), and are thereafter "entangled", into a holistic system.

Entanglement is a mysterious relationship, but it seems to have something to do with Conscious minds. In some sense, each particle is Informed by the other. And conscious observers are somehow able to measure the meaning (or value) of that inter-action-at-a-distance. Which Einstein thought was "spooky", and couldn't be true, because it seemed Magical instead of Physical. Yet, a century later, we seem to be stuck with that spooky reality. Moreover, the effect of an Observation on the super-position of an intangible "wave", which magically & instantly converts from Meta-physical mathematical "wave-function" into a Physical "particle" of matter, again implies the old mind-over-matter concept that has traditionally been applied to Magic.

Like Einstein, I don't believe in Magic -- in the traditional sense -- but I do believe in the power of Information to affect & influence both Mind and Matter. That's what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause changes in form, of both Objects and Ideas. It's not Magic, it's a Coincidence. And that's the crux of Enformationism. :nerd:

Quantum Entanglement :
Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/03/08/20152/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/
The verb "To Measure" originally meant : to extract information from an object into a mind (L. mens-). To take-the-measure of something, is to remove a piece of the "essence" of that thing. And I think that "intrinsic quality" is what we now call Information about the thing.

An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state cannot be factored as a product of states of its local constituents;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Check-out this site : https://www.incrementalcompressionconjecture.com/summary
The link is in the PF thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11872/a-conjecture-that-consciousness-is-based-on-quantum-information

I've only read the Summary. But, "incremental compression" sounds like another way to say "integrated information". Some people are looking for the secret of Consciousness in the Quantum Realm, but they may be missing the Whole, while looking at the Parts. Sometimes we can't see the Forest for the Trees. :smile:

Information is the interaction that occurs at all perspectives of such systems. — Pop

That's similar to what I call "inter-relationships"

Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

There seems to be an information game at play, where information informs and constricts our reality, — Pop

If our reality is a game, who is the player, and who are the pawns? :wink:

Without getting into a debate about this. I do not see a reason to assume dualism? — Pop

OK. Apparently "dualism" means something different to you. You may be thinking in terms of Body/Soul Dualism, while I'm talking about Property Dualism or Substance Dualism. In any case, it's all Information to me. :smile:

•What is the metaphysical status of IIT? :
•materialism, dualism, idealism,
panpsychism, Russellian monism?
http://consc.net/slides/iit.pdf

Take the God out of pandeism, and you get panpsychism. Put mind into all matter, and you don't need dualism. — Pop

The "god" of PanDeism, or as I prefer PanEnDeism, is only invoked to explain the contingent existence of this world. I call it "The Enformer". And as the Eternal Mind, the Enformer puts "mind into all matter". :cool:

Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. — Gnomon
No I don't think so at all. — Pop

I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek point. :joke:

The theory seems to be pretty simple - If information is fundamental, then everything is information from every perspective. :grin: — Pop

Yes. I suspect that you envision that Fundamental Information in a form similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which is singular, but has "multiple attributes". The Wiki article says : "The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental." Which is why some interpret that all-encompassing concept as some kind of physical empirical stuff (perhaps like Dark Matter or Dark Energy), while others view it as a type of meta-physical intangible stuff (like Plato's Ideal Forms). Even Spinoza was ambivalent about his ultimate stuff, calling it deus sive natura (God or Nature).

However, in order to account for the contingent existence of the Natural Physical Universe, we are compelled to look beyond the beginning (Big Bang) to a pre-universal First Cause. Spinoza assumed that physical Nature was eternal, but we can no longer take that for granted. And that's where the timeless & spaceless notion of "Meta-Physics" comes in : as 1> an eternal Multiverse, or 2> an infinite array of Parallel Universes, or 3> as a singular self-existent Creator. In the book we call The Metaphysics, Aristotle discussed and analyzed, not physical things, but human ideas about Nature (Physics). He didn't specifically contrast those Immaterial ideas with Material objects, perhaps because he was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of non-empirical imaginary Eternal Ideals. Or because he didn't want to give credence to the popular concept of invisible-yet-real gods in an ideal realm.

I too, am wary of sounding conventionally religious, when I base my worldview on the axiom of a non-physical (ideal ; eternal ; incorruptible) entity that remains hidden from our empirical eyes. But, I see no alternative, if we are to look at our world, in which less than 5% is empirically knowable, "from every perspective". And in which, we still can't agree on a definition for the only thing we know for sure : our own personal non-empirical Consciousness (cogito ergo sum). :smile:

There is only one possibly immaterial thing amongst this, and it would be the source of self organization - the forces causing the creation of ordered / informational bodies — Pop

That is what, in Enformationism, I call "EnFormAction" (the causal energy or power to create novel forms), or "Enformy" (the universal force opposing disorderly Entropy, allowing the creation of "ordered / informational bodies", including ideas and memes in the mind). :nerd:


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

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (positive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is similar to the information philosopher, and I'm glad information philosophy can accommodate both monism and dualism, although it will probably lead to two distinct information philosophies. — Pop

Actually, Enformationism is dualist in the particular space-time setting, but monist in a holistic infinity-eternity context. It's obvious that the Real world is characterized by oppositions : matter-antimatter, positive-negative, left-right, up-down, good-evil, etc. But on the whole, those opposites tend to balance-out to a neutral state. Yet, it's only in the absence of dichotomous space-time that complete harmony can be achieved. Like any other philosophical position, a single coin has two sides, but what you see depends on how you look at it, your viewpoint or attitude. :smile:

Unity of opposites :
The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

These physical manifestations are assumptions based on all external information having a physical basis. But I don't want to get into a debate about it with you. There is room for different understandings. — Pop

Since philosophy is mainly concerned with immaterial Meta-Physical questions, most answers are uncertain and open-ended. Leaving lots of room for "different understandings". But, as you said, the physical "manifestations" of Information are much easier to pin down. I was simply amused by the image of Philosophers being unable to "draw distinctions" about immaterial non-physical subjects. That would be a gag-order for the whole profession, and for us amateurs. Empirical scientists, studying "physical manifestations" are usually able to come close to a consensus on their distinctions. But philosophers try to accurately dissect things (ideas, concepts) -- that have no physical manifestations -- into neat categories, so it's hard to cut them "at the joints". We could debate those -- ideally pre-divided, but somewhat subjective -- "distinctions" till kingdom come. :joke:

Carving Nature at Its Joints :
Plato famously employed this “ carving ” metaphor as an analogy for the reality of Forms ( Phaedrus 265e): like an animal, the world comes to us predivided. Ideally, our best theories will be those which “ carve nature at its joints. ” Such agreement is certainly suggestive.
https://philarchive.org/archive/SLAILF

when in Enactivist fashion the two [energy & Information] are integrated, material reality is created. It would beg the question - is matter real? :lol: — Pop

Is the "Enactivist fashion" a physical event, or meta-physical? How do both "aspects of reality" co-exist in a world where two real things cannot occupy the same space at the same time? In what sense, does "Enaction" create material reality? Out of what raw-material? If Energy is Real, what is Information? Can both of those "aspects of reality" be integrated empirically, like fusion, or integrated conceptually, like the notion of Holism?

My own term for that creative & integrative principle in the Real world is EnFormAction. It converts what's statistically Possible or metaphysically Potential into what we know as physically Real, and empirically Actual. But in its statistical state, that not-yet-real stuff is immaterial, and merely a gleam in the eye of the "Creator". Which I call "The Enformer". :wink:


EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I would say, these all have their physical manifestation as the neural patterning of our brain. . . .
Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information. — Pop

Yes. I'm obstinate in my belief that Generic Information is, not just "immaterial", but also "meta-physical". Yet I use that term in the Aristotelian sense, not the Aquinas sense. My insistence on using the "meta" word, is what leads some woo-woo-poo-pooers on this forum to label my worldview as "Pseudo-Science". As a long-time Skeptic of pseudoscience, I am keenly aware of the gray area on the fringes of science *. Yet, I think philosophy is the best, maybe only, way to shed light in the darkness. And abusive labels are counter-productive. But now, Information Theory has begun to aim a floodlight into the dim mysteries of both Psychology and Philosophy.

The original referent of Aristotle's "metaphysics" (see below) was to mental concepts, as opposed to the physical things he addressed in The Physics. However, concepts have no physical properties, hence are invisible, intangible, and imaginary. As such, they are easily confused with ghosts & souls. Moreover, abstract Ideas are accessible only to Reason and human imagination, hence not real, as far as our animal senses are concerned. But humans are distinguishable from animals in one essential trait : the ability to know and to communicate abstractions : non-physical mental representations of things and concepts. That's why humans can deal with hypothetical scenarios, and philosophical theories, and what-if scenarios, that are not sensible to our physical means of perception. And it's why I make a distinction between sensory Perception and mental Conception (Ideation). Perception allows us to navigate the Real Natural world, but Conception gives us the ability to know and to communicate the abstractions, such as "Information", that constitute the Ideal Cultural world.

I found your assertion that "there are no distinctions in immateriality" amusing, On this philosophical forum, what do we do, besides draw distinctions (general categories), like lines in the air? Ironically, you referred to "physical manifestation" as-if it was a ghost materializing. By contrast, it's metaphysical conceptions that "manifest". That's what is happening when someone says, "I just realized . . .". By that, they mean an invisible Idea suddenly appeared in their mind, as if it was becoming real. I would hope that, by now, you would realize that my unique usage of "metaphysics" is not a religious or supernatural reference. Instead, it's the Ideal subject "matter" that Aristotle wrote a whole book on.

Since the Enlightenment Era of Empirical Science, word-wrangling philosophers began to be left behind in the dust by scientists, who experimented with real things, and got real results. Which is why scientists, such as Feynman, could express their disdain of feckless philosophers in succinct words : “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”. And non-empirical philosophers were stung by such derision. One response was to change from metaphysical vocabulary to physical jargon -- displaying what some commentators referred to as "physics envy" -- while others dug-in and couched their sagacity in the impenetrable prose of Post-modernism.

But I am not an academic philosopher, so I don't take such put-downs personally. I merely investigate whatever is of interest to me, and use whatever vocabulary seems to convey my immaterial ideas to other meta-physical minds, locked into calcified skulls. "He who has (mental) ears to hear, let him hear (grasp an abstract concept)". Sorry, my early training was not in Science or Philosophy, but in Bible-ology. :joke: :cool:


Concept : an abstract idea; a general notion.
Universal, in philosophy, an entity used in a certain type of metaphysical explanation of what it is for things to share a feature, attribute, or quality or ...
Note -- Aristotle's Metaphysics dealt with Universals and Generalities, that have no physical instances
Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

* The Demarcation Problem :
". . . the concept of pseudoscience is 'without real content' . . . Instead . . . pseudoscience is simply a term of abuse applied to views that scientists regard as threatening." . . . . "what philosophers call the 'demarcation problem' -- finding a principled way to distinguish science from pseudoscience -- and concludes that the problem is intractable."
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (09-10, 2021), by Glen Branch

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.

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).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I'm starting to see information as an entirely physical process. It seems to be physical everywhere else as the interaction of systems - causing a change in them. But I have some work ahead of me if I am going to convince immaterial minds. :smile: — Pop

Yes. I am one of those obstinate "immaterial minds" disguised as a material body & brain. But that ideal ghostly metaphysical Me only exists as an abstract inference from our experience with the physical world. It is not real --- except in the sense of Information Realism.

Mathematicians have no problem thinking of math "objects" as real, in some meaningful sense. That's because they are used to constructing invisible metaphysical "structures" that are an essential part of their personal reality. Of course, being invisible, they must be represented as chalk or pencil marks on a black or white background. For the rest of us, it makes little difference whether such ideas are real or not, as long as we can take them for granted. For example, "Zero", the number with no referent, and the abstract irrational number "Pi", and the abstract ratios of Logarithms are essential to higher math, and modern technology. But, they all are lacking in material substance, even though the concepts of such numbers can be applied to any set of physical objects..

ZERO, by Charles Seife, is a book about literally nothing. Nothing material, that is. But it opened my eyes to the reality of nothingness, and the real utility of the concept of something missing. More recently, Incomplete Nature, by Terrance Deacon, has revealed the reality of Absence in the real world. We use such references to that-which-is-not-here-&-now (physically ; in the flesh) without giving a thought to how strange it is to talk about that which does not exist, as-if it does exist. Yes, that notion allows some people to "see" ghosts, but it also allows scientists and mathematicians to manipulate things, such as Dark Matter, that have no sensible material substance, and are only known by their mysterious effects on the material world. So, we need to be careful, not to throw-out the well-informed Information with the notional nonsense. :smile:

Notional : existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea.

Informational Realism :
What is the ultimate nature of reality? This paper defends an answer in terms of informational realism (IR). . . . The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262350693_Informational_Realism

Information Ethics :
The book’s arguments are situated in Floridi’s contention that we are living through an ‘informational turn’ or ‘fourth revolution’, following the scientific revolutions of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud.
https://theoccasionalinformationist.com/2014/07/29/floridis-information-ethics/

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Some empty-headed genius improved the traditional Eastern counting methods immeasurably by adding zero as a placeholder, which allowed the genesis of our still-used decimal system. It's all been uphill from there, but Seife is enthusiastic about his subject; his synthesis of math, history, and anthropology seduces the reader into a new fascination with the most troubling number.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000QUEHLM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Photons and gauge fields in general are pure energy. — Jeunesocrate

What are the intrinsic physical properties of "pure energy" fields? As noted below, they are imaginary abstract models of hypothetical (immaterial) mathematical "structures". In Architecture school, I built models of buildings that were not-yet-real, and never became real. Their only reality was in their effects on the observer, who might decide to construct a full-scale model.

Those "naive" (pretend) models had some superficial (virtual) resemblance to a real building, but were not suitable for occupancy. They were useful only for thinking and planning for the real thing. So, in what sense is a quantum field real? It affects matter, but is not itself matter, being merely a mental construct. Scientists detect the effects of those ghostly fields with their instruments, but not the field an sich. Likewise, ghost hunters with gadgets search for physical effects of nearby ectoplasm, which they imagine as a pure energy field. But, as far as I know they have never "seen" a ghost with their eyes, only with their imagination.

I don't believe in ghosts, and I don't believe in quantum fields, which like building models are merely useful illustrations . But I can observe the effects of those imaginary objects on believers. At least, the concept of fields is useful for guiding scientists in their mathematical manipulations. Unlike ghost theory, quantum theory sometimes actually leads to real results in the material world. In magic, physical effects are identified with non-physical causes. And in mathematics, physical effects are identified with virtual causes. :nerd:

Pure Energy : uncontaminated with gross matter.

Quantum fields are composed of particles. Okay, virtual particles,
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

Virtual : not real ; not actual ; quasi-real
"not physically existing as such"
"being such in essence or effect"
.
In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi  QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

What's naive about it? — Jeunesocrate

Do you think that Idealists are uninformed, irrational, or biased? :smile:

Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)

All said and done, AI (artificial intelligence) is going to be a machine that will have to follow a set of instructions (code/programming) but there's a catch - to qualify as true AI it has to be able to defy these very instructions. — TheMadFool

FreeWill is indeed the crux of the AI debate. And it's obvious to me, that current examples of AI are not free to defy their coding. But, I'm not so sure that human ingenuity and perseverance won't eventually make a quantum jump over that hurdle. Some thinkers today debate whether intelligent animals have the freewill to override their genetic programming. Even humans rarely make use of that freedom to defy their innate urges. Nicotine and Opium addicts are merely obeying their natural programming to seek more and more of the pleasure molecule : dopamine. Can you picture future AI, such as Mr. Data hooked on (0100101100010)? :wink:

It's not that we form mental images of objects and that we don't have access to the objects themselves. That's a kind of logical empiricism that would make my loved ones very unreal indeed. The situation can be compared with that of math in physics. The "shut up and calculate" attitude says that we will never know the objects an Sich. But the math is merely descriptive. It describes some objective properties. Math is merely a mental construction that we project upon the physical universe. The formalist approach is untennable. The intuitive approach bears fruit. — Platoon

Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there. :cool:

What is formalist approach? :
Formalism may be defined as a critical approach in which the text under discussion is considered primarily as a structure of words. That is, the main focus is on the arrangement of language, rather than on the implications of the words, or on the biographical and historical relevance of the work in question.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-20768-8_2
Note : sounds like Postmodernism to me. No relation to Enformationism.

concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things. — Pop

I was not familiar with the term "Enactivism", although I think you have referred to it before. To me, it seems to focus on the two-pronged Informative power of EnFormAction : the ability to create both physical (things) and meta-physical (ideas) Forms. Information is both the physical structure of Material objects and the rational structure of Meaningful ideas. :smile:


Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. ... this domain does not exist "out there" in an environment that acts as a landing pad for organisms that somehow drop or parachute into the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

I don't agree. The electron and proton in formation have a physical effect. Energy has detectable properties. The frequency of a photon can be measured. Gravitons curve spacetime. — Rstotalloss

I agree with your first statement. But not with the second. Can you give an example of an Energy "property" that is not known by its secondary "effect" on matter? Effects are caused by an outside force. But Properties are inherent in the object observed.

One Effect of light energy is Color, but color is not intrinsic to photons -- it is a noumenon in the mind of the observer, and is mediated by the structure of the physical object. It takes two to make an observable, measurable property : energy plus matter.

So, Electrons, Protons, and Information have physical effects, but noumenal (metaphysical ; mental) Information has no physical properties : it's colorless, odorless, and shapeless. This is an example of Kant's ding an sich, which some people can't wrap their minds around. Phenomenon versus Noumenom is an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:

Noumenon :
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Wikipedia

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

I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. — Pop

Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties (color, size, density). Energy was originally defined as the "ability" or "capacity" to do work, or to cause change in physical things. But Ability and Capacity are qualitative potentials, that have no Actual quantitative substance. However, in a philosophical (metaphysical) sense, Information is the "substance" (i.e. essence ; form) of reality. Aristotle was more of a "realist" than Plato, whose Ideal Forms existed in a non-physical Potential state, until realized into physical Actual things. Of course, that's an abstract philosophical distinction, which may not appeal to some folks.

Even Aristotle made a distinction between "universal" forms and "specific" things. So, his notion of Essential Substance is essentially the same as Plato's Ideal Forms. Philosophically, Universals are Holistic, while Individuals are Particular. Our five senses perceive Individuals, while only the sixth sense of Reason can detect Universals (commonalities, inter-relationships). Such distinctions have been controversial between philosophers even before Plato and Aristotle. That's because only Particulars are Real (empirical ; objective ; quanta ; photons), while Universals are Ideal (debatable ; subjective ; qualia ; redness).

Personally, I resolve such either/or debates with my BothAnd principle. So, you could call me a Pragmatic Idealist. For me, Information exists in both physical and meta-physical forms. :smile:

Ideal Forms are Universal :
Aristotle distinguishes between “substantial” and “accidental” forms. A substantial form is a second substance (species or kind) considered as a universal . . . . Matter, not form, is the principle of individuation.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called “particulars”), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. . . . Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed. Conceptualists explain similarity among individuals by appealing to general concepts or ideas, things that exist only in minds. Nominalists, in contrast, are content to leave relations of qualitative resemblance brute and ungrounded.
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/

Qualia ; Quale :
Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
1. Qualia are metaphysical Properties considered apart from physical Things. Properties are mental attributions or essences (e.g colors), rather than physical sensations (e.g vibrations). Mathematical relationships (ratios) are virtual properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why? — Pop

Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. But, like computers themselves, that notion has become commonplace, and hence has lost its novelty, but not its utility. :nerd:

I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. — Pop

Yes. The physical "correlates" are visible & tangible. But what does the "meaning" look & feel like? Generic Information takes many different forms, some physical and some metaphysical (mental). I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. That's not woo-talk though, because Energy is the same. No-one has ever seen Energy, they only see its Effects on Matter. For example, light rays traveling in dark empty space are invisible, and only become visible when they interact with the chemical Rhodopsin in the eye, thence conveyed to the "neural correlates". If a spacewalker is looking perpendicular to the beam of photons, he will see nothing. Only by putting his eyes directly in the path of the ray does he "see the light".

BTW, I finally got the Patternicity image for my previous post. It's an illustration of the distinction between random background information, and ordered meaningful foreground information. My browser was getting 404 and 403 errors, and it took a long time to realize that the browser was at fault. Fortunately there was an alternative. Like many-faceted information, there's more than one way to "skin a cat" (local idiom). :joke:


Information philosophy considers a material object as an "information structure," from which the immaterial information can be abstracted as meaningful knowledge.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/

He is wrong!! information is not equal to consciousness. Information is the interaction of information, which when integrated becomes consciousness. — Pop

Yes. It's understandable that some might define Information in terms of Consciousness. But they are not the same. And the difference makes a difference in understanding. Information is what we are conscious of : aboutness, relationships, meaningful patterns, structure. In its native "wild" form, Information is meaningless potential, metaphorically equivalent to the static voltage of a battery, compared to the flowing amperage of an electrical circuit. Only when the circuit is complete (whole, unified) is it capable of doing work (energy ; useful relevant meaning).

Likewise, only when integrated into a holistic concept, does information become conscious meaning-or-value-or-significance to the "first person" observer. In terms of quantum physics, an observation extracts information (energy, mathematical values, personal values), which causes the metaphorical "collapse" (manifestation) of an uncertain state into a certain value, such as a vector (position + direction). So consciousness is about information, but is not information per se. You could say that Consciousness is the transformation of Potential information into Actual meaning. Or perhaps, Consciousness is the integration of an amorphous pattern (discrete parts) into a meaningful pattern (a whole concept or image). :smile:

PATTERNICITY

I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information. However I see no advantage in this assumption. What is the practical consequence? . . . To define the term "information" I suggest to with "Information" contained in propositions. . . .
As far as I understand your thoughts move in an area between questions of quantum mechanics and neuro physiology, between structuralism and neo positivism. Even in a more modest area a clarification of the terms would be necessary. — Mersi

Claude Shannon narrowed his definition of "Information" down to one specific "practical consequence" : either a communication of Information conveys (certain) meaning from sender to receiver, or not (uncertain). But that is just one of many ways to define the term. Pop has developed a more philosophical way to approach the problem of understanding what Information is, in more general terms : "Information is the evolutionary interaction of form, or Information = evolutionary interaction, explains the role of information in our lives." Unfortunately, that definition may be a bit too broad for those who don't grasp the Idealized meaning of "interaction of form". Many posters on this forum don't give credence to Plato's notion of abstract eternal Forms, as the essence of concrete space-time Things.

So, the problem with a comprehensive definition of "Information" is that it is all-of-the-above, and more. I call it a ShapeShifter, because Information takes different forms, depending on the context. In a computer, it can be reduced down to abstract mathematical symbols : 1 or 0, all or nothing. On the other hand, you mentioned that you have "no problem with the equivalence of matter and information". But what does that abstract equation imply about the real world? In what sense are Matter and Information the same thing? To clarify that claim of multiple identities, I would add a third entity : The Matter, Energy, Information Equivalence. The original referent, of the verb "to inform", was to the invisible & intangible contents of a human mind (meaning). But Shannon gave it a mathematical & physical interpretation similar to the quantum collapse of an abstract & random waveform into a specific concrete particle of matter. However, by comparing the uncertainty of randomness to Entropy, he brought-in a connection to abstract causal Energy, which we infer from its effects on Matter.

Therefore, a complete definition of "Information" must cover all of those technical & scientific concepts, along with the philosophical notions of "aboutness" & "meaning" & "cybernetics". In its causal energetic form, I spell it : EnFormAction (the power to cause change in form). Only when you understand the ubiquity of Information in the real and ideal worlds, will you be able to see the manifold practical and philosophical "consequences" of Information, as Spinoza's "universal substance" of the world. :nerd:


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Matter, Energy, Information :
Unpublished until now, this essay was written in 1969. It takes up the ancient concept of form, in order to interpret the contemporary concept of information and to develop a unified concept encompassing both biology, as understood cybernetically, and physics, as the theory of decidable alternatives
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03668-7_11

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. 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

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

People who don't believe in God or any higher power like to say that the Big Bang was the start of the universe and everything. Well even if that is the case, that still leaves the question of why there was a Big Bang in the first place. — HardWorker

This formerly Hot thread seems to have cooled-off. And the topical question, which implies a rational (intentional?) First Cause, seems to have elicited one succinct cynical answer : "there is no why" (i.e. no reason), and a variety of philosophical curiosity postulations : "the reason-for-being for whom?". The succinct answer is plausible, only if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, hence no reason-for-being, apart from Serendipity. But even atheist scientists are aware of the poverty of the "no why" retort. Which is why so many irrational or unintentional Causes, or just-so Prior Conditions, have been proposed by those who seek only data, not reasons : Quantum Fluctuation, Many Worlds, Multiverse, Hyper-Inflation, etc. So, we are faced with A> the simple Brute Fact of the world's Self-Existence, or B> the rational inference of a specific Cause to explain the observed universal Effect.

Alternative "A" implies the eternal existence of an evolving (but cyclic) material universe, while "B" assumes a non-cyclic world, with a specific point of beginning. Which implies the eternal or timeless existence of a creative agency of some kind. However, both "explanations" are speculative, not observed facts. Yet, the existence of Reasoning ability (homo sapiens ; observers) in the Effect, implies the potential for Reasoning in the Cause. So, to ask about a "Reason for Being" is a legitimate philosophical question, even though it's not a question subject to an empirical answer. Therefore, those who ask such questions are motivated, not by Pragmatic concerns, but by philosophical curiosity. Presumably, animals (and cynics) don't feel the need to know such hypothetical (impractical) information. But recorded history shows that "why" questions are innate to the human condition. Only the incurious, or fatalistic, are afraid to ask the Big Why questions. :cool:


Serendipity : the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way..

Cynical : bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

but then things are going OK for me, for now. — Zugzwang

So, why worry about the infinite array of possible futures, what could be, when what is "now" is at least OK. Worrying does not not change the future. Only actions, both positive & negative, can change what-might-be into what-is. Don't worry, be happy. :grin:

Stoicism : an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Sounds as if you speak from a tower of saddened ivory. What's wrong with viewing the mind as settled in the brain? The brain is made from matter. — DanLager

My tower of mental facts, not material ivory, is built upon the foundation of ubiquitous Information. So, it's true that the Mind is a product of a material Brain. But that Brain consists of immaterial Information. Are you aware of the Matter-Energy-Information Equivalence Principle? Matter is indeed physical, but Energy is only a mental inference from the effects of Causation on Matter. And Information is the Aristotelian "Substance" of both. Hence, the Brain is made from intangible Information. :nerd:

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. 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

Gallows humor. — Zugzwang

I just heard a bit of "gallows humor" in YouTube's The Expanse. Miller, the battle-scarred detective on space station Eros, was surrounded by men with guns. So the situation was not looking good for his survival. When encouraged by his partner to hang-in there, he quipped "optimism is for *ssholes and earthers ". Not exactly a Seinfeld quote, who when asked "what's your script about?", replied "nothing". Nevertheless, the dour detective persevered, and lived to quip another hopeless day. :joke:

AFAIK, there's nothing stopping an asteroid from wiping us out. How do believers in a cosmic logic, with humans at the center of it, deal with this possibly? Square it with the Thesis? — Zugzwang

I don't personally know many "believers in cosmic logic", but I'm currently reading the book by Astronomer Physicist John D. Barrow, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. He's no Pollyanna, but he looks on the bright side of the cosmic coin. He lists several cosmologists, since the 18th century, who "believed in an evolving, melioristic universe". The book's Introduction, by famous physicist John Archibald Wheeler, makes an assertion that "squares" with my thesis : "our own time has made enormous headway in sniffing out the sophisticated relations between entropy, information, randomness, and computability". [my emphasis]

Wheeler also says, "The philosopher of old was right! Meaning is important, is even central. It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. . . . That is the central point of the anthropic principle". Based on his positive assessment of the "Cosmic Logic", he postulated the concept of a Participatory Universe, in which humans are not helpless victims of fickle Fate, but collectively affect the course of evolution via feedback from its participants. So, you can, like those serious physicists, choose to interpret the evidence in a positive light, or negative. Of all the products of Evolution, only humans have any semblance of FreeWill, of Free Choice, to emphasize the positive, or the negative aspects of Reality. :nerd:


Meliorism :
1. The belief that the human condition can be improved through concerted effort.
2. The belief that there is an inherent tendency toward progress or improvement in the human condition.

The Participatory Universe :
Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.
http://www.spacemachine.net/views/2014/11/participatory-universe

Yet, most animals seem to be unbothered by questions about Life's Meaning, or the inevitability of Life's End. T — Gnomon
They don't have to bother. They just live. — Pristina

Yes. But humans do "have to bother". It's in our nature to compare what-is with what-could-be. And to strive to better a bad situation. Would you change places with a blithe Panda bear, contentedly chewing on bamboo, unbothered by the immanent extinction of its species? :cool:

Let's throw in working to improve that reality while simultaneously adapting one's attitude and I'm with you. Also include an escape clause : some situations are so dire that a self-induced painless exit is reasonable. — Zugzwang

I agree, that some oppressed people in the world, have compelling reasons to consider suicide as "an escape clause". Yet, ironically, most of those suffering souls do not make that drastic choice. So there seems to be an innate "will to live" despite all incentives to give-up. That perseverance in the face of despair, may be one source of dogged optimism. But my positive outlook is more of an intellectually-developed philosophical worldview, as summarized in the BothAnd Principle.. :smile:

The BothAnd Principle :
. . . .The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity). . . .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Now you add another layer as you present your optimism as a choice. Sartre's a dark philosopher, after all, speaking of human being as an impossible quest to become god (something like that, he's not easy to parse). — Zugzwang

What other choice do we have, besides depression and suicide, when faced with our lack of omniscience or omnipotence? As a Christian, I used to think of Existentialism, and its Existential Despair, as a "dark" and Pessimistic attitude. But now, as a post-Christian, I view the choice to take responsibility for our own choices, as a Pragmatic attitude. Even though we may not have a heavenly father to look-out for us, homo sapiens still have the innate qualities required of Moral Agents : self-awareness, etc. :smile:

I don't share that sense of cosmic progress, — Zugzwang

The natural progression of this exploding cosmos is not evident, unless we include the gradually-evolving cultural progress of the human element. FWIW, the links below provide some of the evidence that allows me to have "a more optimistic outlook". :grin:

Cosmic Progression :
Unexpectedly, organic Life appeared in the middle of the "life span" of the Cosmos, . . .
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Moral Progress :
Steven Pinker, probably motivated in part by this pessimistic trend in academic & religious circles, has contributed a plethora of reasonable & plausible evidence for a more optimistic outlook.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page71.html

Reading ‘the myth of the fall’ symbolically - what it symbolises is the beginning of self-consciousness, the emergence of the sense of ownership, of the awareness of loss, of self-aware being. That is why the tree from which the apple was taken is the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’. Animals have no such knowledge - they simply dwell in the present, eating and being eaten, fleeing from terror and seeking sustenance. — Wayfarer

Yes. The key insight of :The Fall" myth is that humans are both blessed and cursed by their "knowledge of good & evil". Which makes us moral agents, who are forced to make hard choices, but without the omniscience to know the consequences of those choices. Some Misanthropes on this forum seem to be willing to trade places with the "lower" animals, who are merely faced with choices of Life or Death, instead of Good or Evil. Human self-consciousness includes awareness of our Existential plight. Yet, most animals seem to be unbothered by questions about Life's Meaning, or the inevitability of Life's End. That human tendency to philosophical ennui, may be why Feynman advised his fellow physicists to "shut-up [about metaphysical questions] and calculate". :cool:

A more perfect world: look where this ability to imagine a more perfect world brought the world: to an increasingly barren and aridly acid world on which a major part of the once flourishing "lower" creatures have no place anymore these days. A huge part of the biodiversity has simply been destroyed in modern man's attempt (and it are mostly men) to recreate the world. — SoftEdgedWonder

Does that dismal view of the current state of the world, mean that you'd prefer to go back to the totally natural -- no synthetic furs -- Caveman times, where biodiversity meant that your only problem was to avoid getting snapped-up by a T-rex, or stepped-on by a Woolly Mammoth, and watch-out for talking snakes? That must have been a perfect Garden of Eden.

Unfortunately, as the Bible says, that Idyllic child-like existence was destroyed by the human arrogance to rely on Human Reason, instead of divine Revelation, to learn how to create a Cultural Utopia. Is your solution to this "increasingly barren and aridly acid world" to turn back to God's Providence? It was Reasoning that got us into this mess. But some of us still arrogantly rely on that imperfect talent for imagining something better than what-is : what could be. Perhaps a race of robots *, sans ego, will do a better job of creating a perfect world, as in The Matrix. :joke:

I'm kidding, of course. I know where you're coming from. But I prefer Optimism to Fatalism, as an onward & upward, rather than backward, worldview. :smile:

* synthetic metacognitive agent : as envisioned by

↪Gnomon
Actually, what brought on :cry: was my :rofl: at your :monkey: response to ↪apokrisis
. It wasn't "pollyanny" but funny-bone hilarity only a spent philosophical discussion could hit. :nerd: — 180 Proof

I assumed as much. The reply was intended to be Ironic. You have made your dismal view of Reality, "boiling, toxic, mudball", clear from the beginning. Ironically, my moderated optimism allows me to take your derogation in stride, and even to find it somewhat amusing, as a sign of the depths that "a spent philosophical discussion could hit". :grin: :joke: :cool:

Dismal : depressing; dreary.

But I’d beware of dismissing ‘religious salvation’ in such casual terms ('harp-strumming afterlife'). It's like saying, science be damned because of eugenics, or something. — Wayfarer

I apologize, if that comment sounded dismissive or damning. But it was just intended to convey that my personal worldview does not envision any kind of "salvation". Instead, I assume that the evolution of the world, including all of the pain & suffering, is working-out just as intended. By that I mean, the Hegelian dialectic is inherent in the program of Evolution.

Even in my native Christianity, the notion of salvation seems to imply, either that God created a world where evil is allowed free expression, or that God is not omnipotent enough to counter the evil acts of Satan. So, even as a Christian, I concluded that Evil (pain & suffering) must be a part of God's plan, from the beginning, and Satan (the accuser, adversary, prosecutor) was just an agent for testing Faith, as indicated in the book of Job.

The reference to "a harp-strumming afterlife" was also an expression of my rejection of almost all life-after-life doctrines. The afterlife views of pre-Judaism Hebrews was similar to that of the Egyptians, in that a heavenly hereafter was reserved for those who where already gods in human form (Pharaoh), who was just going home, after a brief sojourn on Earth. The average Hebrew or Egyptian had no reason to expect anything after death but eternal darkness in the grave (Sheol). Again, today, those who hope to go to heaven, or a higher dimension, or Nirvana, seem to assume that God (or Fate) made a mistake in assigning them to endure the sufferings of an imperfect world. By contrast, I assume that this imperfect world was intended to evolve toward a more perfect state. It's an experiment, not in blind faith, but in freewill under less than optimal conditions.

Admittedly though, that feeble alternative to Fatalism, is no consolation for those of us currently living in this uncertain world of ups and downs. That's why I find Existentialism to be a pragmatic solution -- to make the best of a bad situation, by adapting your attitude to reality, rather than expecting reality to change to suit your preferences. So, my personal moderated Optimism is not based on hope for Salvation. Of course, it also means that, if I wake-up after death with wings & harps, I will be pleasantly surprised. :smile:

OK, I'll move. Your relentless optimism reminds me of a program, featured perhaps in a scene cut from The Matrix. Don't get me wrong. You add value. Another vegetable in the soup. — Zugzwang

Thanks. It's hard to find reasons for optimism on a relentlessly hyper-critical forum. I do find that having philosophical and scientific reasons for (moderated) optimism is far preferable to the grim (we're all in this alone) Existentialism of Materialism.

I gave up my blind faith in religious salvation long ago. And it's hard to find reasons for optimism on a forum full of hyper-critical cynicism. But the knowledge that our world is not merely an astronomical accident -- randomly going nowhere -- does provide some incentive for global optimism -- realizing that the world is not just going to hell in a handbasket, but actually progressing toward some higher state.

Realistically though, my optimism is moderated by the less-than-perfect current state of affairs. But knowing that the future can be better than the past is enough incentive for positivity to avoid sinking into existentialist despair. So, I'm just following the advice of Sartre : to accept the personal responsibility for giving my life meaning and value, by constructing an idiosyncratic positive worldview from the latest available evidence, instead of taking some ancient Utopian myth on faith.
Signed, Just Another Veggie in the Stone Soup :cool:

Existential despair', a painful sense that no human activity of any kind could ever be of any worth. 'Life is nothing until it is lived. It is we who give it meaning, and value is nothing more than the meaning we give it.' - Jean Paul Sartre.
https://www.icaad.com/blog/existential-despair

An idiosyncratic person is someone who does things in his own way

Reply to Wayfarer :
"That positive progressive outlook doesn't necessarily give us reason to hope-for-heaven, or to expect an idyllic harp-strumming afterlife. But it does give us a reason to be mildly optimistic about the ups & downs of a less-than-perfect reality. It also allows us to create our own personal goals beyond mere clinging to life, and making recreation of procreation. Although we are not (yet) in full control of the cosmos, human culture is motivated by imagining a near-future Utopia, to aim for in our personal and political aspirations."

It's your move. :wink:

this whole 'information craze' starts with Norbert Weiner's Cybernetics, where he says 'information is information, not matter or energy.' — Wayfarer

Yes, the 20th century "information craze" has earned the label of "The Information Age". But, as you noted, most of the attention has been directed toward the empty vessels that computers encode with mathematical values, that are neither matter nor energy, but abstract ratios & relationships.

However, my interest is primarily in the meaningful aspects of Information, which was the original referent of the term : the contents of Minds, not Brains; Intelligence, not Data. Unfortunately, since many of the posters on this forum are materialists -- with philosophical physics envy -- I am forced to deal more with the tangible forms of Information. But that's OK. The ubiquity of Information (the matter-energy-information equivalence) is a part of its intrigue for me.

So, for me, the 21st century Information explosion is going beyond the mere enthusiasm over pragmatic malleable data, and has crept into every corner of the human experience. Information is not just a practical tool, it's the essence of everything. :smile:

It’s fine to have your own private metaphysics I guess. But I did think you were aiming to go beyond this kind of simplistic understanding of “information”. — apokrisis

I'm afraid a "simplistic" understanding is the best I can do, since I am not trained in more complicated interpretations, and technical jargon (" ontic structural realism"). So, I try to describe my "private metaphysics" in language that a layman can understand. So no, I was not aiming to produce an abstruse academic paper for a few philosophical pundits. :cool:

↪apokrisis
↪Gnomon
:cry: — 180 Proof

I'm glad to see that you enjoyed the addition of a little optimism and positivism, not to say Pollyannaism, in your bleak Realistic life. Apparently, you were so overwhelmed with emotion, that it brought tears to your eyes. :joke:

The problem I see with that is that the sole criteria for success in evolutionary theory is just to survive and to procreate. That's why 'evolutionary ethics' can only ever amount to either utilitarianism or pragmatism, there is no sense of being an over-arching purpose or aim. — Wayfarer

The Enformationism worldview does not claim to "know" what the "over-arching" purpose of this experiment in evolution might be. Barring a direct revelation from the Programmer, all we can say is that our world seems to be progressing toward some future state that is more complex and integrated than our current situation.

That positive progressive outlook doesn't necessarily give us reason to hope-for-heaven, or to expect an idyllic harp-strumming afterlife. But it does give us a reason to be mildly optimistic about the ups & downs of a less-than-perfect reality. It also allows us to create our own personal goals beyond mere clinging to life, and making recreation of procreation. Although we are not (yet) in full control of the cosmos, human culture is motivated by imagining a near-future Utopia, to aim for in our personal and political aspirations.

Of course, a solid grounding in Pragmatism will make our Romantic imagination more likely to succeed. That's why most human societies have produced idealistic religious systems, in addition to pragmatic political organizations. to encourage us to keep-on-keeping-on, despite the daily setbacks and disappointments. The human ability to imagine a more perfect world gives us an advantage over the "lower" animals, who can only deal with Reality in a Pragmatic survival-of-the-fittest mode.

I can't say for sure that our world was designed with mankind in mind. But a historical perspective shows that the rate of change (both positive and negative) has accelerated since the advent of Homo Sapiens. That progression is most obvious in the form of technology, which gives us control over Nature far beyond the innate tools of animals. But, we can also see some degree of moral & ethical progress, as described by Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. Therefore, if we look at the world from a higher & broader vantage, we can find more philosophical criteria for success, than just our biological animal nature. :smile: