I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance. — Benj96

Actually, there are some people, who achieve seemingly supernatural feats, not by magic, but by self-control. In the article linked below, the "spiritual" elements seems to be profound self-confidence (faith), and the human body's response to the Placebo Effect (what you believe, the body will try to do). :brow:

The Science Behind Miracles : "For thousands of years, humanity has occasionally glimpsed man’s capacity to do the seemingly impossible or the miraculous using only force of will . . . . Hof, for his part, sees the whole thing in a much more spiritual light—getting back to a purer, more primitive version of ourselves. . . . But he’s not magic, and we should be careful about trusting important health decisions to any belief-based technique."
https://www.outsideonline.com/2146421/limits-endurance

Of course. It is a cultural taboo, and such purported powers are obviously ripe for explotiation. — Wayfarer

It's not just a Western "cultural taboo". Throughout history, miracle-workers, including Gandalf & Dumbledore, have warned against frivolous use of magic powers. And modern stage magicians tend to be careful when & where they perform. Probably, because those who get the big head, and believe their own tricks, may get careless, and allow their exploited onlookers to see through their smoke & mirrors. :gasp:

Serious vs Frivolous Magic :
A magician, also known as a mage, warlock, witch, wizard/wizardess, enchanter/enchantress, ... As a result, competent wizards do not use their magic frivolously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magician_(fantasy)

Well, Thich Quang Duc would be the definitive case in point. After all, being burned alive ON PURPOSE has got to be a whole other universe of superhuman feats. Makes Houdini look like mere dabbler. I put a lighted match to my finger in a microsecond it's too much to bear. — Constance

Ordinary humans can do some amazing, and disgusting, things when entranced by faith. In some Catholic countries, people celebrate holy-days by whipping themselves, til their flesh is in shreds. In Japan, disgraced Samurai (not necessarily Zen Buddhists) sometimes committed ritual suicide by hara kiri (belly cut). Self-disembowelment is one of the slowest and most painful ways to pay for the shame of public dishonor. That's just one of many reasons I try to avoid the mind-control methods of Faith. They too often require horrendous self-sacrifice for reasons that seem ridiculous to non-believers. :sad:

Hara Kiri : https://www.interactiongreen.com/why-samurai-commit-seppuku/

do you know the meaning of 'siddhi'? They are the super-normal powers which yogis are supposed to attain through the perfection of dhyana. — Wayfarer

Whenever magic is involved in super-normal claims, I become skeptical. I don't know so much about Buddhist magic, but Hinduism has a long tradition of magical feats performed by "spiritual" tricksters, for gullible audiences. One example, that I'm familiar with, occurs in the US. It's called "Yogic Flying", or "Levitation by Meditation". This trick works best in still photos, because in videos it's obvious that it's muscles, not magic that levitates the meditators.

I don't doubt that meditation is a good discipline for those with unruly minds. But back when I tried Alpha-Theta meditation, I discovered that my normal state of mind is pretty close to the meditative state. And Lucid Dreaming was more suited to my rational nature. So I decided I had better uses for my time, such as exercising my brain by posting on philosophical forums. :cool:


Siddhi is the term given for a spiritual or seemingly magical power or capability, which is obtained through rigorous and accomplished spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5172/siddhi

Yogic Hopping :
https://youtu.be/UUnxnuUVEOs

Hopping while Sitting :
https://medium.com/@transcendentaldeception/yogic-flying-sore-knees-getting-conned-by-transcendental-meditation-433ac4dc59ff

Can the universe contain itself? Ie. Be simultaneously the container and Contained? — Benj96

The universe (one circle) is like a Venn diagram. It is the class of all real things. But there may be another circle that is the class of all possible things. The image below is not exactly what I'm talking about, but it's the closest I could find on short notice. It shows all possible things from two perspectives, from inside the universe (relative reality), and from an outside divine vantage (absolute ideality). :smile:

put this kind of distance between suffering and his own meditating self, — Constance

Yes, some deep meditators are supposed to be able to shut-out physical pain while they retreat into an inner world of their own. Years ago, I knew a man, who had been through rigorous Erhard Seminars Training (EST), which included a form of non-buddhist meditation. He flew from California to my state to set-up an aerial mapping office in my college town. But, when he arrived, he realized that he was coming down with the flu. Since he couldn't take several days off for such personal problems, he decided to get it over-with in one night. So, he began to meditate, focusing on his bad feelings instead of a mantra. For about an hour, he felt really really sick. But, then got-up and went about his business with no more flu symptoms. That's what he told me. And I had no reason to doubt him. But what the monk did was pretty extreme. He took a quick but all-in path to Nirvana. :gasp:

Interesting.i would follow up with a question; can one commit mental suicide instead of physical suicide? — Benj96

Well, "going crazy" (psychotic) might be one way to escape from awareness of the psychic sufferings of reality. But, I don't recommend it. Also, I suppose that some cynics might consider prematurely reaching Nirvana (quenching the flame) via meditation to be a form of "mental suicide". In a more literal sense, the self-immolating monk apparently committed suicide, while meditating, but without actually quenching the flames. Yet, again, I don't recommend it. :sad:


Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, burns himself to death on a Saigon street on June 11, 1963, in protest of alleged persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government. (Malcolm Browne/AP)

↪Gnomon
No offence intended. :smile: — Pop

Thanks. I was hoping some of my neutral terms were merely misconstrued as political. The links below go to blog pages that I revised due to your feedback on this thread. Of course, even the revised views may not be exactly how you see the world.

The blog post is a book review of philosopher Edward Feser, who claims that “Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.” Although his theology is different from mine, his philosophy seems to be compatible with my own. :smile:

Immanent Causation & Self-Organization : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page77.html
Hierarchical Evolution : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page78.html

Aristotle and Einstein : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page69.html

Asking how is always implicitly asking why. Every causal explanation is contingent on some purposive stance within the question. — Pantagruel

For a philosopher, that may be true. But for empirical scientists, only "how" questions are relevant to their interests. Except for a few theoretical physicists, they typically leave the "why" questions to theologians and philosophers. :smile:


PS___I just uploaded a blog post that touches on the "intentional stance" among other metaphysical concepts that are off-limits to reductive Science.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page72.html

Where does your definition of Nirvana come from? — Jack Cummins

Nirvana (nibbana) literally means "blowing out" or "quenching". It is the most used as well as the earliest term to describe the soteriological goal in Buddhism: release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. — Thinking

That one-eyed look at history ignores the progress made by philosophers in the field of Natural Philosophy. Aristotle summarized the current state of knowledge of the physical world in the first book of his 4th century encyclopedia : Physics (literally "lectures on nature"). For over 1500 years thereafter, Aristotle's book was the authority for Natural Philosophers. Now, although that book has some historical value, it is of little significance for 21st century Natural Scientists.

However, the second volume of the encyclopedia, later labelled "Meta-Physics", has continued to provide valuable insights for both philosophers and scientists to this day. That's because it is not elaborating on the primitive understanding of Nature by ancient people using only their natural senses, and some rudimentary theories. Instead, in the Meta-Physics he laid-down the foundation for modern psychology and philosophy, by revealing some of the innate paradoxes in Human Nature. Those contradictions may be due mainly to the dual nature of homo sapiens. We have both an ape-like body, and a sapient self-consciousness. Therefore, until we cease to be self-reflective apes, we will continue to struggle with competing motives, emotional versus rational. And with perplexing philosophical paradoxes.

The history of Philosophy indicates that during the European Enlightenment, Natural Philosophers, such as Galileo, built on the holistic Greek foundation of natural knowledge, and began the reductive quest for the holy grail of modern science : the "atom" of physical Nature. From then on, physical science was characterized by analysis, mechanism, and reductive empiricism. This rupture in the continuity of philosophical investigation left theologians and meta-physical philosophers behind, to deal with intractable questions of the non-physical aspects of Nature. That's why, on this forum, we continue to argue about the Mind/Body problem, long after physical science has nailed-down the material structure of bodies & brains. Yet, even mostly philosophical Psychology is still in the primitive stages of understanding the elusive butterfly of Psyche. :smile:


Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Psyche is the Greek word for butterfly.
https://extension.purdue.edu/article/14398

Nirvana is not necessarily about 'enlightenment, or inner peace' but is the release from the wheel of rebirth — Jack Cummins

"Nirvana" literally means "snuffing-out of a candle". Which may indicate why suicidal people may find the notion of nothingness preferable to sufferingness. :smile:

You know, I'm beginning to agree with you. :gasp: — Wayfarer

Only beginning? I thought you were on board from day one. :joke:

“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”
― Robert M. Pirsig,
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

↪Gnomon
Your theory preserves the status quo. I'm not interested in that. I think it is destructive and unsustainable. You affirm the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality, whereas I am trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality. — Pop

I'm offended that you are still laboring under that mistaken attribution. That's just the opposite of my intention. My thesis proposes a Paradigm Shift in science, not a status quo of social organization. In the quoted post, I made a clear distinction between Natural Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy. The status quo of Nature is always evolving, but there's not much that humans can do about it. Yet Social organizations are also evolving, and humans can do something about its inequities.

That's what the Social Contract philosopher was saying in the quote : "John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means." And his ideas influenced the American Revolution against " the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality" So, your interpretation of my post is exactly the opposite of my intention. And I await your apology.

However, when I said that my worldview is "inherently hierarchical", I was referring -- not to politics -- but to the obvious evolutionary pyramid of species from single-cell organisms to res cogitans. You may not like the natural food-chain of apex predators at the top, with herbivores in the middle, and vegetation near the bottom. But, hey, that's life : "red in tooth & claw".

However, If you accept the First Cause or Creator Deity explanation for the contingent existence of our world, then you must accept that the natural hierarchy of Life, is inherent in whatever plan is being worked-out in the on-going sequence of Cause & Effect. If you don't accept such intentional causes, then it's all random, and there's nothing that res cogitans can do about the status quo. :sad:

PS__I was just kidding about being offended. I am not so easily upset by the verbal tug-of-war of philosophical dialog. And I apologize, if I gave you the wrong impression. :cool:

PPS__So, you are " trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality". That reminds me of a saying in the former socially-stratified plantations of America after the Civil War freed the slaves : "bottom rail's on top" (referring to fence rails). By that, they meant the social order had been turned upside-down. Ironically, a century later, the "bottom rail" still has not made it to the top of the pyramid.

Why do I say that quality, viewed as distinctly non-mathematical could be an illusion? — TheMadFool

I'm a latecomer to this thread, and I haven't read all the other posts. But your question is pertinent to my personal worldview : Enformationism, which assumes that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information, including mathematics, matter, & mind. In that case, "Quanta" are material things that we evaluate in terms of mathematical qualities (values), such as Mass. However, what we call "Qualia" are the mental/mathematical evaluations themselves, which we experience as ineffable Feelings.

When expressed in language, we refer to those values as "Meaning". And, for the observer, meaning is relevance to Self. It's a relationship (in mathematical terms, a Ratio), which we basically Feel emotionally (chemically), but eventually rationalize into words (meta-physically). Which is what we call "Reasoning".

So, Qualia are not mere meaningless or erroneous "illusions". They are instead, emotional mental feelings of significance or relevance (positive or negative). In that sense, they are all we ever know about Material Reality. Qualia are perceptions, that we convert into non-verbal Meaning (ineffable feelings), and then into conventional verbal communication of Information.

This is just a quick sketch of my understanding of Qualia. I may try to develop it further, as I get the time to evaluate the murkiness and misapprehensions of the sketch into communicable information. :nerd:

Generic Information :Information (ability to enform) is Generic in the sense of generating all real forms from a formless pool of possibility : Potential ; the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Ratio of Evaluation : Students understand the value of a ratio A:B is A/B. They understand that if two ratios are equivalent, the ratios have the same value. Students use the value of a ratio to solve ratio problems in a real-world context. Students use the value of a ratio in determining whether two ratios are equivalent.
https://www.onlinemathlearning.com/value-of-ratio.html
Note -- In the ratio A : B, "A" can stand for the observer, and "B" for the thing observed.
A" is usually set as "1", and the object as a range from "1 to 0". The numerical expression of that evaluation is the value of that object to me. The value, in turn, can be converted into feelings, or money, or size, or weight, depending on the context.

PS__The Quality we call "red" is a sensory evaluation of the spectrum of light frequencies, which fall into the range of 430 terahertz, relative to the overall speed of light. The brain converts the Quanta of frequency into the Qualia of Red, which is a feeling.

My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop

I was surprised that you found my hierarchical worldview to be a biblical or political prejudice. So, I want to clarify my usage of the term. In my current book review, about Modern Science versus Aristotelian Philosophy, the topic of Natural Hierarchies came up. And in response to your forum question, I added a note to differentiate between socio-cultural organization (military & priesthood ranking ; political power) of human importance & power, and the natural organization of organic complexity (degree of enformation ; self-organization) as exemplified in food chains. Here's the note I added :

Note :
John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means.

NATURAL HIERARCHY OF ORGANIZATION


SOCIAL HIERARCHY PYRAMID

After a few weeks I realize there is a big unknown across this forum... naturalism! — Raul

I suspect that most of the posters on this forum are aware of the philosophical position called "Naturalism". But, it's not very enlightening, because it's based on circular reasoning : everything in the natural world is natural . . . duh!.

The unstated & un-proveable assumption of Naturalism is that the physical universe is a closed system, with no inputs from outside our finite world. Unfortunately, the Big Bang theory implies that something, energy & laws at least, necessarily existed prior to the sudden appearance of space-time from some unknown & unknowable source. That's why a few Cosmologists have postulated an imaginary turtles-all-the-way-down natural series of Multiverses, to explain the provenance of our local Nature, and to take the place of traditional imaginary creator-gods.

My own personal worldview is a form of Naturalism, in that it accepts the theory of physical & biological Evolution, as far back as Science can track the cosmic expansion. But, like Multiverse proponents, I'm not content to leave the story of evolution open-ended at the beginning & end --- no overture or finale. The scientific method dictates that empirical Physics must stop at the point where material evidence fades away into nothingness (e.g. Planck Time). Fortunately, theoretical physicists and philosophers are not bound by Bacon's practical rules. So, we can speculate about the time before time, and the nature before Nature. Which is literally super-natural, whether it posits an eternal realm of redundant Multiverses, or an eternal realm of necessary Creative Force (energy) & Lawmaker (organizer). :nerd:

Is philosophical naturalism circular reasoning? :
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8241/is-philosophical-naturalism-circular-reasoning

Planck Time : Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html

↪Walter Pound
God or no god, given a set of alternatives, you will do or choose one of them. Where's the freedom in that? — tim wood

What if the road forks three ways? Are you forced to take the middle path, or the mathematical mean? What if there is no exact middle? Can you toss a coin to choose the forced alternative? Or just go round & round in circles? Not all choices are black & white. :smile:

Left or Right or go back to where you came from?

My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop

No. Scientific. And Rational. Emotion and Sentiment sometimes motivate well-intentioned, but futile, attempts to turn the stratified & ranked system upside-down -- as in Marxism. Perhaps, in the distant future, artificial human culture will achieve some measure of Egalitarianism. But even then, I suspect that the little fish will be at the bottom of the food chain. Fortunately, the prey can sometimes turn the tables on the predators, as in the Musk Ox Defense. :grin:

Hierarchy is an important concept in a wide variety of fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, organizational theory, systems theory, systematic biology, and the social sciences (especially political philosophy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Note : Enlightenment-era science dropped the catholic hierarchies of church authorities, for good reasons. But the hierarchical structures of nature are god-made, not man-made.

LITTLE FISH OF THE SEA, UNITE !!!


MUSK OX DEFENSE

That all things are conscious because they arise from the same process - interrelational evolution, is the most important consideration to me. Human consciousness is not something special or set apart from that process. Of course human consciousness is the most evolved and complex expression of that process. Closing the door on all-things-are-conscious, without proof, on the basis of ancient assumptions seems like magical thinking to me. — Pop

I agree, up to the last sentence.

Closing the door to magical thinking is a basic tenet of open-minded skepticism. It's like slamming the lid on Pandora's Box, after you see what kind of demons are flying out of it. The "proof" of the magical pudding is the eating thereof. If it tastes like fantasy & fiction, don't swallow it, expecting nutritious facts & reality . Magical thinking doesn't require evidence, only faith & imagination. :cool:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
___Carl Sagan
But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

PS__I'm not saying that your Theory of Consciousness is based on Magical Cognition. But the implicit notion of Universal Consciousness is common among those who feel free to attribute meaning & significance to coincidences & accidents. Also, to Those who see meaningful patterns in tea leaves & animal entrails & lines on palms. All I'm saying is, don't be so open-minded that your lie-detector compass gets blown about by every wind of doctrine. :nerd:


“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan

Trying to convince you of a better alternative understanding is like banging my head against a brick wall, and the same for you in trying to convince me. So this reality is a bit disappointing. :angry: — Pop

Hey! That's just philosophy. Philosophers have been arguing over the same big questions for thousands of years. And made little progress on the really "hard questions" : the ones that have little hard evidence to base an opinion on. The easier ones we turn over to empirical science. But, stubborn as rocks, we keep on trying. Your worldview is very close to mine, except for a few quibbles. So, keep on pounding those bricks into dust. :up:

Its up to the higher consciousness to speak to the lower one in terms it understands. Give the rock a kick next time and see what it says. I'm sure it will acknowledge a response. — Pop

My last relationship with a Rock, of lower social status, was rather rocky. And it ended in stony silence. :love:

You have a logical problem with your conception - you cannot define human consciousness. — Pop

Actually, I can define "human consciousness". It's the uniquely human perspective of the world, that homo sapiens have in common. Every other worldview remains a mystery, unless they speak my language. But some people still project their own inner views onto alien consciousnesses. :smile:

what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness — Pop

That's not what I meant to imply. But I do think that "anthropocentric self awareness" is the only kind I can identify with, due to the human ability to put their awareness into conceptual words, instead of just behavioral actions. I assume that the higher mammals, that have a lot in common with human mammalian physiology (e.g. centralized brains), are self-aware to some degree. That typical feeling has been corroborated by the Mirror Test. But even that experiment gets less & less indications of self-conception as they go further down the food chain. If an Octopus is self-aware, does that mean that Calamari is murder? :joke:

At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. — Pop

My worldview is inherently hierarchical, so I don't relate to Octopi as peers. They don't apeer to me as moral equals. My view has a fairly clear pecking order. So I can justify being a carnivore, who eats the flesh of living sentient creatures. Although, I'm not a fan of tentacles : raw, fried, or boiled. :yum:

Peer : noun. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

I thought you might see it this way. :smile: But thanks for all the background, very very interesting. — Pop

You sound disappointed. Was it the godless, meaningless implication of "the appearance of design"? The rest of Blog Post 45 has a less mechanistic conclusion. :yum:

Natural versus Supernatural Teleology : Functions versus Goals
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html

The interaction places evolutionary pressure on the system, and its environment. It is what we are presently ( in this discussion ) involved in, and it is what a rock is also involved in. — Pop

I agree. But the last time I had a discussion with a rock, it had nothing interesting to say. That was a one-way conversation between Rocky & me. :razz:

Seriously though, the evolutionary dialog in my view is essentially what Hegel called "The Dialectic" : action provokes reaction, which provokes the next action. :smile:

** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — Pop

I don't remember the context of that assertion. But I think "cognition" is a bit more than "a reaction to a disturbance". Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin:

Cognition : the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

There were however elements of it at every level, and as we have mentioned previously, it is based in externalities, in a "pocket of order" causing it. Hence panpsychism, in my view. — Pop

I can generally agree with that assessment. But I still like to reserve the term "consciousness" for the higher levels, and use "information" or "energy" to describe the early steps toward full self-awareness. Also, I admit that my worldview is similar to Panpsychism. But, because of the Magical & Spiritual implications of that term, I prefer to find other ways to describe the notion that "everything is Information". For me, all Magic is in the believing Mind, not in external powers. :smile:

This is not a logical conclusion from your argument. The logical conclusion should be a neutral stance from the logic of your argument. — Pop

Since I have a well-worked-out theory of how Information works in the world -- like a progressive computer program -- for me the "logical conclusion" is to reserve the label "consciousness" only for the most highly developed forms of Generic Information (self-consciousness), and to assume that lower level objects & organisms are not conscious enough to warrant that label. The Aristotelian Potential for consciousness exists at all levels of evolution, but only in the later stages does Actual Consciousness" emerge.

But, since your worldview begins with Consciousness at the beginning, the logical conclusion might be to assume that everything in the world is aware, from the bottom-up. It's all a matter of degrees of development, yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking. And I prefer to stay as close as possible to Scientific Thinking. To me, "Information" is a more "neutral" term, with fewer implications for Animism & Spiritualism. :smile:


Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.

Magical thinking is a child's belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens.

PS__Actually, my worldview also begins with something like Consciousness, before the beginning. That's what I call G*D. But, apart from a form of self-consciousness, I can't imagine what an eternal deity would be conscious of. I can guess that G*D is aware of the goings-on in He/r creation. But that's not the same as what some imagine as Cosmic Consciousness. So, again, I try not to waste too much time speculating on such things, that we can never know, except via direct revelation. And I remain skeptical of the various biblical or traditional claims to speak for God.

PPS__At the early stages of development of Consciousness, as in atoms, I call those primitive exchanges of Information : "Energy".

This is a side note from our current discussion. Before I found this thread on the provenance of Consiousness, I hadn't thought of that evolutionary process specifically in terms of technical theories of Self-Organization -- although that was implicit in many of my blog posts. But, I am currently working on a blog-review of a book by a modern philosopher looking at science from an Aristotelian perspective.

Today, the notion of evolutionary Self-Organization came-up. So I did a little research, and added a note on Aristotle's notion Immanent Causation, which is essential to self-organization. A couple of links are added below. I also found an old blog post on a similar topic. FWIW, Here's an excerpt from Post 45 :

Throughout history, deep thinkers have produced various theories to explain the compelling “appearance” of design in nature. Teleology : Aristotle's hierarchy of causes from First to Final, was presented as an “impersonal, undesigned, aspect of nature” equivalent to natural laws. Holism : Medieval meta-physicians produced a theory of Mereology, in which parts & wholes interact in a sort of mathematical logic to drive nature toward a final solution. Conatus : Aristotle called the tendency of things to evolve toward their natural predetermined state, “striving” , which is like a combination of Energy and Enformy. Vitalism : Gregory Bateson called his natural biological force, ėlan vital. Autopoiesis : The acorn-to-oak-tree process is an example of self-organization, and several thinkers have tried to discern how it works. Systems Theory : A modern version of Holism is the science of Systems, which studies how parts & wholes work together to maintain the stability and success of the system, to ensure that it fulfills its function. Morphogenesis : A theory of biological enformation based on fields as the wholes that influence the parts to act cooperatively, and with single purpose, to reach a future form & function. This latter is a return to the notion that the future goal & purpose was set by the creator or designer or programmer. Thus, the “appearance” of design is an inference from a mechanical system that works as-if it was created for some practical reason, just as a clock serves a purpose that is not found in the mechanism itself.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html

What Is Self-Organization? http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7104.pdf

Self Organization : http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7104.pdf

Immanence and Causation in Spinoza : https://philarchive.org/archive/MARIAC-12

Or perhaps what is outside the system is a cause of consciousness. The system interacting with what is outside of itself causes consciousness. — Pop

What do you suppose is "outside the system", constantly "interacting" with components of the system to cause energy exchanges to evolve into self-awareness?

In my thesis, I don't claim to know anything definite about what outside influence might have "caused consciousness" to emerge. But I can extrapolate from what we currently know about how the system works, in order to extend the chain of causation one step beyond the Big Bang. And, the necessary features of that First Cause seem to be essentially the same as those attributed to Creator Gods, from the beginning of history. That's why I reluctantly use the neologism "G*D", to serve as a generic modern version of Brahma, Jehovah, & Ahura Mazda, etc.. :halo:

No it doesn't occur spontaneously. But neither dose human consciousness. As I see it we are still locked into this singular way of being as an evolving biological system. We have not disconnected from those turtles causing us, we still depend on those turtles. This leads to an impression of a multilayered being in a pocket of order, or a being in the universe. — Pop

That's why I conclude that Human Consciousness is merely the current stage of a continuous on-going evolutionary process of complexification & integration. Perhaps, even mind-reading silicon-based beings in the future may be more empathetic & conscious than our primitive 21st century Awareness. But, I don't dwell on such speculative notions that are beyond my comprehension.

I can however, rationally imagine tracing the development of awareness back through time, and the degree of Information Integration (complexity & wholeness) diminishes as it gets closer to the beginning of time. Consequently, only since the emergence of organisms with language have we been able to share the feelings of others rationally, as opposed to the vague non-verbal sensations of emotional Empathy. :love:

However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd: — Gnomon
Proof of definition please. — Pop

The "things" I was referring to are inorganic objects, and don't have any viscera, no brains, no neurotransmitters, no subjective consciousness, etc. For example, people have been known to attribute feelings to toys, dolls, cars, and especially to therapeutic robots that simulate emotions. But even low-level organisms (amoeba), with some internal organs & neurotransmitters, cannot convey their subjective awareness of feelings to us. So, in the absence of verbal evidence, or mind-reading, they are presumed to be robotic (or zombies). Hence, we infer that their reactions to external stimuli are programmed, scripted, automatic -- with no reflective cognition. They may behave as-if they have subjective feelings, but we'll never know for sure that the observer's subjective impressions are as-is.

That's because these human interpretations (opinions ; presumptions) about non-humans cannot be proven positive or negative, because subjective feelings are not amenable to empirical testing. So, we could debate forever, and not be convinced against our own personal feelings & beliefs about Consciousness. Unless you communicate them to me in words, I only feel that you have feelings, by empathy with your outward behavior that resembles mine. Hence, I project my feelings about your feelings onto you. That's how aura readers can confidently "see" the feelings of inorganic "beings". :joke:


Misplaced Empathy : anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human characteristics and emotions onto inanimate objects
https://www.mindfood.com/article/new-study-reveals-why-it-is-we-feel-empathy-for-inanimate-objects/

Robots created that develop emotions : They are programmed to learn to adapt to the actions and mood of their human caregivers,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809094527.htm

Reflective Cognition : Cognitive science has distinguished between two types of thinking: intuitive and reflective. Intuitive cognition is fast and automatic, whereas reflective cognition is slow and deliberate.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1906

Inorganic Auras : The only similarity between inorganic and organic beings is that all of them have the awareness-bestowing pink or peach or amber emanations
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jjudd/energy/partI/universe/inorganicb.htm

We don't know what emotions are. We have agreed we cannot conceptualize them. We cannot feel each others emotions. If we don't know what something is, how can we say something does not have it? Why would information not contain emotion? An empirical assumption is not a good enough answer. — Pop

I know what my emotions are, implicitly. But you can't know my emotional state, except by explicit descriptions of what those feelings mean to me. Or, by judging (conceptualizing) from my behavior compared to yours. So, I'd say that we can "conceptualize" another person's feelings, even though we can't actually feel them. That's what words are for : to share concepts in my mind with you. Ask your wife if she'd like to share her feelings with you. :grin:

If we "know what something is made of, and how it works", then we can say, with some confidence, what properties (qualia) that thing has and doesn't have. However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd:

Projection : the process of displacing one's feelings onto a different person, animal, or object.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=projection+psychology

The synergy of atoms creates molecules. The synergy of molecules creates amino acids. The synergy of amino acids is where animate matter emerges. It is the pattern and folding of amino acids that create protein machines that are able to carry out independent cellular functions. For some idea of this, there is the awareness in molecules thread. — Pop

In Darwinian evolution, there is no need for "awareness in molecules". As KenoshaKid pointed-out "No awareness required, just a survival advantage".

However, contingent survival of novel forms is dependent on the pre-set criteria (programming) for what counts as an "advantage" (fitness). And the judge of fitness is what Darwin called Natural Selection (conscious choice?). Charles didn't explain who the chooser was. But I refer to the One who selected the criteria as the Programmer.

So, I think the main difference between our theories of Consciousness is that I model it as a deterministic evolutionary program of evolving information (data), but with the freedom to explore novel solutions. While your model retains a touch of mystery. I place the "awareness" at the beginning (input) and end (output) of the process, not the middle. :nerd:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Sorry but Panpsychism is based in observations like these, not as you have assumed it above. — Pop

I wouldn't call the spontaneous emergence of new forms an "observation", but an interpretation. For example, the sudden crystallization of liquid water into a snowflake might look like magic to someone inclined to think in such terms. But, to a scientist, the unseen steps between liquid & solid are merely due to the "nature" (enthalpy) of water. By that I mean, the water is Programmed to respond to loss of latent heat energy by forming crystals that require less energy to maintain their geometric form. And the "magic" is merely the subtraction of mundane Energy (EnFormAction). :chin:

The Nature of Matter : Aristotle referred to the essential properties of a material object as its "nature". And that natural disposition is defined by "hyle" (malleable stuff) and "form" (design or program). The inherent limits & possibilities of the design determine how the object responds to causal forces.

Enthalpy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion

None of that emergent consciousness is possible without the ordered patterns of consciousness below. It is not turtles all the way down, it is patterns of order creating emergent properties, which when synergized are self ordering - they are equally an evolving process of self organization, where human consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. — Pop

I agree. And I think you are referring to the self-generating systems within Nature that Deacon calls "Autogens". But, the "ordering" and "organization" of system is the Effect of a Cause.outside the sub-system (holon) that is changed. It doesn't just happen spontaneously.

I call the cause of those "ordered patterns", EnFormAction, because no consciousness is required to create patterns within randomnes. Unless, that is, you want to count the turtle at the bottom of the pile : the one I call The Enformer. I can't say with any certainty that the Enformer, outside the system, is Actually conscious in the same sense that humans are. But logically, since Consciousness has emerged from pre-conscious evolution processes, the Enformer must have possessed the Potential for consciousness. This notion is based on Aristotle's definitions of "Actual" & "Potential". :smile:


EnFormAction : The power to create meaningful patterns within a meaningless randomized system. Higher forms of those patterns are able to recognize the meaning in other patterns. That's what I call Consciousness. Since that power (energy) is invisible, its effects appear to be Self-Organizing, as in the Phase Transitions of physics.

Terrence Deacon's Autogen : A self-generating system at the phase transition between morphodynamics and teleodynamics; any form of self-generating, self-repairing, self-replicating system that is constituted by reciprocal morphodynamic processes
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Order within Chaos : Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. ... This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

If you can recognize the "meaning" within Chaos, you are Conscious.


Slight edit : "where human consciousness = the pinnacle of an evolving process of self organization".

I was having a lot fun with Pop and I cannot laugh? Com'on Gnomon enjoy life :rofl: I'm maybe Macho but I'm a nice person. Aren't you? — Raul

Nah! You're no fun anymore. Your scientific superiority schtick is wasting time on a philosophical thread about Consciousness, which has baffled scientists for ages. Paraphrasing Banno's put-down of such diversions : "because . . . science . . . QED"

Until you have some new ideas of "epistemic value" to contribute, we'll just take our ball, and go-on having fun with the original game. :roll:

schtick : a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc. associated with a particular person.

In my understanding, this is the beginning of consciousness . . . . What I'm getting at is that there is an evolving process at play always — Pop

I agree, but the metaphorical "awareness" of an atom or ant is not fully-developed. In my graph of cosmic progression, full Consciousness was attained only after Life emerged only a short time ago, on the cosmic scale. Information (EnFormAction) is the causal force of Evolution, but it only causes consciousness after a long period of complexification and integration, as in IIT. :smile:

No there is nothing spiritual about my understanding. It is entirely logical. Rigorously logical. — Pop

OK. I'll accept that. In my worldview, Spiritualism was an intelligent rational response to the pre-scientific understanding of ancient people. They saw animals moving & behaving, so inferred that they were motivated by a common invisible force, that they compared to life-giving breath. But they also saw trees moving in the wind, and concluded that invisible Spirits or souls or gods were shaking them (Animism). Some even detected evidence for Spirits in crystals that sparkled with light energy. But today we would attribute those phenomena to non-conscious non-living Energy. Hence, the worldview of Panpsychism that is fashionable today among New Agers, and even some scientists, is based on an outdated understanding of causation. That "breath of the gods" notion might have been logical three thousand years ago, but now we are able to make a practical distinction between Information -- which in some forms has a mind-like quality (meaning) -- and Energy -- which sometimes has a life-like quality (motion, animation), but no human-like mental qualities. This picky distinction is necessary for the logic of my thesis to make sense. :nerd:

Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality.

Spiritualism :
A primitive theory of Cause & Effect, ignorant of physical energies & forces. Enformationism is an update based on generic Information as the “substance” of both Energy & Matter. To Enform is to cause an effect. To be“spiritual” is to discern true causes. Animal Intuition is sufficient to grasp that this reliably follows that. But ancient humans tended to reason beyond the obvious to imagine hidden causes for natural events, such as weather. Invisible spirits & gods were held responsible for both productive rain and destructive storms. But modern reasoning has found mundane causes for those natural phenomena. The chain of causation leads all the way back to the beginning with no miraculous gaps between causes & effect. And each causal event is basically an exchange of energy/information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

We know a philosophical zombie is inert with only energy and information. It needs emotion for consciousness. Why should this not work for everything?
The logic is that it should! — Pop

Everything? Are you saying that atoms have emotions, and communicate feelings? Perhaps, in a metaphorical sense. But the fine distinction I make is between non-conscious Energy Effect, and Conscious Affect. Effect is a physical (material) change due to energy input. But Affect is the meta-physical (mental) result of a meaningful input of information. It's the same difference between Motion and Emotion. :chin:

↪Gnomon
Lets not respond to trolls. — Pop

I'm sorry for allowing your thread to go off-topic. But I enjoy sparring with those of different opinions. I don't really expect to change their minds, but it's good exercise for my flabby philosophical muscles. :joke:

You have so many things to learn. It is evident you guys don't even have a scientific education, and you have invested all this energy writing a theory of everything — Raul

Raul, you accused me of wanting to go backward to a primitive way of thinking about the world. But I'd like offer a different analysis of our contrasting worldviews. Instead of going backwards, I have made a lateral move. In my youth, during discussions on religious topics, I was sometimes accused of being too rational & analytical -- of being a know-it-all -- making no allowance for human feelings and opinions. I was more like you then. But, over the years, I discovered that I did have some things to learn, that are not found in the textbooks of mainstream Science. Ironically, I'm now sometimes accused of being passive-aggressive.

One thing I've learned is that the world is not all simplistic black & white. It's a complex rainbow of perspectives, some of which are true, some false, and some truish. To counter black & white thinking, I like to refer to the Yin/Yang symbol, where both halves contain a spot of the other color. In terms of the Enformationism thesis, I call that the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that the world is characterized by opposing forces. Like the human genders, the hard, aggressive, no-nonsense, Masculine element is compatible with the soft, passive, sentimental Feminine element. But. balancing the inherent conflict between those different perspectives is not an easy task --- as illustrated in the tribulations of marriage between male & female.

My original character was typically masculine : focused on Reasoning, Doing, Analysis, and Sensory Evidence. Now, my new, more balanced, personality makes allowance for Emotions, Feelings, Holism, and Intuitive Evidence. I'm still not completely harmonized to the point of being genderless, but I try to be open to other points of view. However, your aggressive, haughty, know-it-all responses -- to a side of the world you are not comfortable with -- seems a bit too Macho for a philosophical forum, where moderation is the key to a calm, reasoned dialogue. :grin:

Macho : showing aggressive pride in one's masculinity. [or rationality]

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.
* 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).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued reasoning in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic


PS___Your hyper-agressive use of smiles ( :lol: :rofl: :lol: ) indicates a tendency to ridicule what you don't emphathize with. Please try to be cool. :cool:

My worldview in few words? I consider myself a natural-cognitivist. — Raul

I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview?

I'm not one of those that tries to create a theory and think it is the cutting-edge theory because I'm not a professional philosopher, I'm not a scientist so I don't have access to the latest technologies so it would be ridiculous and pretentious for me to build a theory of the world myself. Are you a philosopher or a scientist? — Raul

Apparently, you bow to the authority of the priests of Science, and don't trust your own reasoning ability. Yet, you claim to have a personal worldview. Did you just snatch it out of the air? On what authority was it based? What cognitive steps led to that personal belief system?

Since you are posting on a forum for amateur philosophers, why do you think it's "pretentious" to "build a theory of the world" yourself? The Enformationism thesis specifically denies that it is intended to serve as a new religion. Besides, what do philosophers do, it not build theories of the world? What's the point of this forum, if not to share specific opinions & general worldviews? :joke:

Heterophenomenology ("phenomenology of another, not oneself") is a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena.

That objective perspective of Science is fine for studying the physical material world. But it's not adequate to understanding the subjective meta-physical mental world. The topic of this thread is : "a short theory of Consciousness". Has your natural-cognitivist approach contributed any "epistemic value" to the hard question of Consciousness -- of Subjectivity? Dennett thinks he has solved the problem, by merely dismissing it as a problem. He calls Consciousness an "illusion". Is your awareness a hallucination? Maybe that's why you don't trust your own reasoning ability. :nerd:

Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times). — Raul

Obviously, you have completely missed the point of the Enformationism thesis. It is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. I do explore the wisdom of the past, such as Aristotle's categories. But I don't accept any pre-scientific notions about the physical world as authoritative. Yet, I do think that pre-scientific sages were not idiots, as you may assume, but merely doing their best to understand How & Why the world works as it does. Modern Science does a good job of the "How", but struggles with the "Why". Hence the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness remains unsolved to this day. At least, a few of us, like Pop and Gnomon, are trying novel approaches, rather than repeating the same old failures of the past. :wink:

PS___Does your worldview explain "not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love"?

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

Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value. — Raul

What word would you suggest in place of "Materialism", as the opposite of "Spiritualism"? Are you a Materialist or Spiritualist or Other?

I'm sorry the thesis of Enformationism doesn't add any "epistemic value" for you. Nevertheless, it was only intended to add epistemic value to my own personal worldview. :cool:

21st Century Materialism : Perhaps because modern developments in biochemistry and in physiological psychology greatly increased the plausibility of materialism, there was in the mid-20th century a resurgence of interest in the philosophical defense of central-state materialism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy/Twentieth-century-materialism

Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy