According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Many thinkers have pondered "what causes the difference" between Classical (deterministic) Mechanics and Quantum (probabilistic) Statistics? The Quora explanation below*1 --- probably unintentionally --- suggests that the "non-traditional" difference may lie in a Holistic vs Particularistic*2 approach to understanding. My peculiar (philosophical) interpretation of the paradox is that the elusive quantum particle is normally "entangled" in a functional integrated System, which must be forced to "collapse" in order to reveal one isolated part of the whole complex.

But what is it about Measurement that pops the balloon? My personal unorthodox guess is that Measurement (root : mensura ; mens = mind) is an extraction of Information, which as noted in my previous post, is a form of Energy/Force*3. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) postulates that real world objects are collections of particles that are held together by some "force" similar to Gravity (gluons?) into a cohesive organization : a whole system with new functions in addition to those of the constituent parts*4. If that is the case, and if Information is a form of Energy (causation), then probing a sub-atomic system looking for particular answers, may disrupt the structural unity of the system --- like removing a single card from a card tower --- and reveal its components as they fall apart.

You may be able to suggest a more statistical analogy pointing to the same "collapse" effect. For me, this is just a philosophical footnote on the broader application of Holistic (general to specific) Deduction. :nerd:



*1. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-physics-not-deterministic

*2. Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Oxford Dictionary

*3. Information is Energy :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*4. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. ___Wikipedia

Immanuel Kant presents us with a surprising and seemingly absurd alternative: we ourselves are the source of physical laws. Seemingly absurd, because we cannot influence the laws of nature. — Pez

I don't interpret Kant as implying that human observers create the laws of nature. What we do is to mathematically define the apparent necessities*1 of Nature. We observe "regularities" of cause & effect, then describe the process as-if it was imposed on nature by the Initial Influencer : The Prime Mover or The Impetus*2. So, humans are indeed the "source" of the formal & mathematical definitions, that we then use to predict statistically certain future outcomes of accurately formalized current conditions.

The knowledge of Necessity is not a physical empirical fact, but a metaphysical rational inference, just as all philosophical universals, a priori principles, are extrapolations from a few observations to a generalization. Yet, pace Hume*3, as far as we know, these "rules" are a priori & absolute, not contingent. So, it's not "absurd" to think of them as-if Divine Laws, even though we have no divine revelation to confirm our best guesses. Those "laws" are like Mathematics in general, taken to be true until an exception is observed.

Therefore, "what makes nature comply" with laws of our own defining? The implicit Impetus or First Cause of the ongoing sequence of Cause & Effect is the enforcer of Necessity. If the "laws" were not essential to the workings of the world, then the Source, or LOGOS, or Lawmaker would be superfluous. Is there any better answer to the implicit OP question : why is the world not totally Chaotic? :smile:

PS___ Galileo said, "The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics."
Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote : "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Logical patterns in nature would be unreasonable only if its processes were totally random, instead of mostly predictable. Is that why Plato postulated an ab original Logos?
Wigner : https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf


*1. Kant on the Laws of Nature :
Appearances may well offer cases from which a rule is possible in accordance with which something usually happens, but never a rule in accordance with which the succession is necessary… The strict universality of the rule is therefore not any property of empirical rules…
Wigner : https://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/jkreines/laws.htm
Note --- Hence, the universality & necessity of natural laws could only be mandated by a sovereign Ruler. Ouch!

*2. The Impetus :
In the latter work Philoponus became one of the earliest thinkers to reject Aristotle's dynamics and propose the "theory of impetus": i.e., an object moves and continues to move because of an energy imparted in it by the mover and ceases the movement when that energy is exhausted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philoponus
Note --- "impetus is something that impels, a stimulating factor while momentum is (physics of a body in motion) the product of its mass and velocity.” https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-impetus-and-momentum

*3. Hume Causality :
(1) The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time. (2) The cause must be prior to the effect. (3) There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. [...] (4) The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises but from the same cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humean_definition_of_causality
Note --- If this logic holds, we can rationally back-track causation to the original Prior : the First Cause, the Prime Necessity.

As-If : We use "as if" and "as though" to talk about an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is likely or possible.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/as-if-and-as-though

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim

I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls. :smile:

*1. First Principle :
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. That's why the quantum pioneers concluded that the conscious mind doing the sub-atomic measuring may have deterministic physical effects*1. Not due to Magical powers, but to something they have in common. Today, that something is typically known as "Information", especially in the form of causal Energy*2 and mental Entention*3. That notion is still in the early stages, and has not yet become scientific doctrine. But it is interesting fodder for philosophical speculation.

For those who are not afraid to conjecture into the unknown, such explorations may be called "quantum mysticism" or "quantum philosophy", depending on your attitude toward projecting what we know into the unknown. Nobel physicist Roger Penrose*1 is just one of many theorists who are pushing the boundaries of physics & psychology & math into uncharted territory, perhaps harboring strange "influences". :nerd:


*1. Quantum mind :
Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness . . . .

These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. . . .

Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

*2. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6[/i].

*3. Entention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action

As a common enough example, for such people proclaiming “science says so” is to proclaim the unquestionable truth of that which is stipulated. . . . .
Any position held on all of these many issues then being entirely metaphysical claims. — javra

Yes, but when I accuse them of holding a belief in authoritative Scientism, they don't seem to see what's wrong with that. Instead, they appear to think that Philosophy should be subservient to the final authority of infallible Empirical Science. But, when I ask for book, chapter & verse from their "unquestionable" Science Bible, I get no answer.

As I noted above, has a different definition of "metaphysics" from mine. And that discrepancy may be the reason for the topical question of this OP. In the 20th century, European physicists were still being trained in philosophy, and made metaphysical conjectures routinely, especially to explain the paradoxes of Quantum Theory. Are these aggressive anti-philosophy beliefs being promulgated in universities these days? I assume it's not just ignorance of philosophical concepts, of which 180 seems to be an expert. :smile:


DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SCIENTISM :
Scientism assumes that rational knowledge is scientific, and that everything else that claims to be knowledge is just superstitious, irrational, emotional, or nonsensical. Although Science and Scientism do share the same topics and content, their worldviews are entirely different.
https://journal.unpar.ac.id

The statement was aimed at those - including some hereabouts on a philosophy forum - which are antagonistic toward metaphysical enquiries period, to include investigations into the nature of causation, time, space, and identity, among others issues of metaphysical concern. And to me it goes hand in hand with what I've said here. — javra

To put this as colloquially as I can, metaphysical enquiry is the attempt to figure out what reality is really all about. — javra

I agree that Aristotle was concerned with Reality in general, and included Mental phenomena under the heading of Phusis (nature). But, since modern empirical Science split-off from traditional Philosophy, to go its own way, for some the term "metaphysics" came to mean "unscientific", with implications of "irrational". For my own purposes, I equate Metaphysics with Modern Philosophy, which has abandoned Empirical research to focus solely on Theoretical speculation. I even spell it with a hyphen, Meta-Physics, to emphasize that it's primarily the study of non-physical phenomena, such as Consciousness, and causation-in-general (vs specific causes).

Unfortunately, some TPF posters still seem to think that Metaphysics should be empirical. Hence, they insist that dissecting brains is the only way to understand the quality of Self-Awareness --- which seems to be unique to only a small selection of organic matter. For example, asserted above that "metaphysics is not theoretical". So, it seems that he is "antagonistic" only to Theoretical inquiries, that go beyond physical evidence, to conjecture about, not what is physically Real, but what is logically Possible. Hence, he might reject the Multiverse theories, not as Meta-Physical (literally beyond our space-time world), but as merely un-scientific, because empirical evidence is impossible. But the parallel notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang, would be characterized as mystical "woo-woo", presumably because it's pure speculation, un-grounded in hard facts.

According to that reasoning, "investigations into the nature of Causation" would have to be limited to looking at its material effects, not its original source : Aristotle's imaginary First Cause. For those "antagonistic" toward theoretical Metaphysics, any universal or general concepts would be taboo. That's because empirical Science can only study particulars, and to generalize (via induction) would be presumptive of omniscience. Ironically, polymath scientists do that all the time, crossing the line between Empirical Science and Theoretical Philosophy ; between what's Real, and what's Ideal ; twixt what's Actual and what's Potential . :smile:

What is the thought experiment about Schrödinger's cat? — ucarr

The paradoxical thought experiment was intended to illustrate the apparent absurdity of Quantum Superposition (wave/particle duality). Which required a paradigm shift in scientific understanding of Classical Determinism, and also implied that the intervention of a conscious mind could have causal effects on the physical world.

Schrödinger's expressed opinion --- that Consciousness, not Matter, is fundamental in the world --- is one of many instances of what calls "Quantum Mysticism". Which is why he wants to "distance TPF" from 20th century Science, in favor of 17th century Classical Physics. :smile:

Deacon sounds like he's espousing what C. Rovelli aptly calls "quantum nonsense"... — 180 Proof
I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

There's a lot of "quantum non-sense" out there, because --- as Einstein objected --- some of it's key features are literally non-sensical, and contrary to common sense. But, sorry Einstein, "God does play dice" on the floor of reality.

Ironically, Rovelli's Relationalism is compatible with my own Enformationism. Inter-relationships are the essence of Information. Superposition is an unsustainable relationship, which "collapses" upon experimental questioning. :cool:


Carlo Rovelli’s Relationalism :
At first, Rovelli primarily applied his relationalism to quantum mechanics. However, Rovelli has gone on to apply this metaphysical position to just about every… thing.
Although the following piece is partly sympathetic to relationalism, the primary criticism which remains is that Rovelli appears to be simply inverting the (to use Derrida’s words) “violent hierarchy” that has (according to Rovelli) been set up between objects (or things) and relations in both Western philosophy and in modern physics. In other words, Rovelli has now placed relations — rather than objects — at the top of the pile.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relationalism-as-defended-in-his-book-helgoland-2020-b66caf122159

...T. Deacon's thesis seems to be 'nonreductive physicalist scientism'... — 180 Proof
No. The long slog through the statistical bias towards equilibrium, i.e., entropy towards the far-from-equilibrium states required of life is illuminated in detail by the scientific work of Deacon in Incomplete Nature, a game-changer in the mind/body inquiry. — ucarr

Yes, it is a "game changer". But is not interested in changing the traditional Materialistic rules of the game*1. He seems to like it just the way it has been since the 5th century BC : rigid Atoms & inert Void, with no agent of Change, or role for a POV. A sentient perspective introduces disruptive opinionated Subjectivity into orderly factual Objective science.

Reductive Science is good at dissecting Atoms, but is unable to separate Mind from Brain. And it was baffled by the indeterminacy of Quantum Physics. Deacon's innovation is to focus on the Void --- the Absence --- that allows Atoms to change position & function --- to introduce novelty into a robotic mechanism. Without that Constitutive Absence, progressive evolution would be impossible. As the Atomism*2 entry below suggests, the Inventive Void that permits & causes re-arrangement of matter does not feature in 180's physical worldview, in which human experience is Absurd. :nerd:


*1. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter :
Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. . . . We need a “theory of everything” which does not leave it absurd that we exist.
https://anthropology.berkeley.edu/incomplete-nature-how-mind-emerged-matter

*2. Ancient Atomism :
The interactions of particles too small to observe is a compelling way to account for perceptible changes in the natural world. Even Aristotle—often cast as the arch-enemy of atomism—allowed that there might be a lower limit to the quantity of matter that could instantiate certain properties. But not all atomist theories were based on an appearance/reality distinction: Buddhist philosophers posited phenomenal instants with minimum extension in time as well as space, to mirror the ephemerality of moments of human experience. Void spaces between atoms sometimes, but not always, feature in atomist theories.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/

Hello, 180 Proof. I've been learning from you, and I very much appreciate your patient instruction. I'm very gratified to have some of your attention. — ucarr

It might be instructive to ask 180 about his attitude toward Deacon's "radical" Incomplete Nature, and Absential theories. In view of his scathing remarks above regarding "quantum nonsense", ask him if Deacon's discussion of "Downward Causation" ; "Quantum Entanglement" ; "Emergence of Ententional Organization" (IN p161--164), and "Teleology" (IN chap4) is a case of "quantum mysticism", or just plain literal "nonsense". You might find that his conventional Materialism is more exclusive and closed-minded than your own. :smile:

PS___ His attention in this thread is primarily directed at mocking Gnomon, not instructing ucarr in the finer points of Materialist doctrine.


Incomplete Nature :
A radical new explanation of how life and consciousness emerge from physics and chemistry.
https://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914

The curiously closed mind :
It’s said that all truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then violently opposed and then, finally, it’s deemed self evident.
https://www.carolcassara.com/the-curiously-closed-mind/

Sorry, but look at Wikipedia for this definition:
"In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible."
This has nothing to do with your "downward causation" conception — Ypan1944

Yes. "Supervenience" is a technical logical term, and does not necessarily entail "downward causation". But some thinkers have used the notion of logical priority to infer physical order of causation. In that case, like Holism, it appears to conflict with the typical scientific method of Reductionism from a whole system to its constituent parts. But Nature seems to be able to work both ways, especially in its mental functions. If you don't like the term "Holism", does "non-reductive physicalism" make sense in your worldview? :smile:


Property Emergence, Supervenience, and Downward Causation :
Downward causation (DC) is the key notion in emergentist philosophy, as shown by the tension between the aspects of dependence and nonreducibility in the concept of supervenience, preferred by many philosophers to emergence as a basis for nonreductive physicalism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S143176130470018X


According to NONREDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM, “mental properties, along with other “higher-level” properties, constitute an autonomous domain that resists reduction to the physical domain”
http://www.csun.edu/~tab2595/14_Reductive_Nonreductive_Physicalism.pdf
Note --- I wouldn't say "autonomous", but merely place Mind in a special philosophical category from Matter. You can't dissect Ideas with a scalpel, but with Reason.

All this epitomizing philosophies which argue against an examined life — javra

You do realize I was kidding? :joke:

I think you stand on solid ground whenever you correctly ground your conjectures in science.
You can do yourself a favor by keeping away from metaphysics for now. Metaphysics is your enemy because it lulls you into complacecey about not being your better self. — ucarr

I think you’re the one trying to bias Deacon towards immateriality. I don’t think he’s biased in either direction. He pays heed to immateriality, not because he prioritizes it over materiality, as you do. Instead, he pays it heed in order to bring it back into balance with materialistic science, which he eschews no more than he does immateriality. — ucarr

For the record, I am not a scientist. So, I don't pretend to be doing science on this forum. That's why 's cartoon of Gnomon, as a New Age nut, touting Quantum Mysticism, is completely wack.

Anyway, the physical sciences study objects -- including humans -- from the outside, and reveal little about the subject inside the skin. I try to keep myself informed about Physics, to serve as a "ground" for my explorations into MetaPhysics*1. And Quantum Physics opened up a whole new field of play, by discovering that the observing mind plays a role in the results of sub-atomic experiments. Unlike some New Agers though, I don't interpret that interpretation as evidence of magical mind-over-matter effects. But I do follow prominent physicists in their interpretation that Information (energy + mind stuff) is an active Agent*3 in physical changes. That is the "ground" of my Enformationism thesis. Which is philosophical & metaphysical, not scientific & physical in character.

Apparently, it's your materialistic bias that views my focus on Metaphysics as unscientific. I agree that Deacon is not a Spiritualist, but he does criticize Eliminative Materialism, "because it presumes that all reference to ententional phenomena can and must be eliminated from our scientific theories". (IN p81) And it's the metaphysical Ententional*3 functions of the human mind that I am interested in. Deacon quotes physicist Seth Lloyd : "the fact that the universe is at bottom computing, or is processing information, was actually established in the scientific sense . . . . showed that all atoms register bits of information". (IN p74) And that is the scientific "ground" of the Enformationism thesis.

Metaphysics is the study of the Self, not the non-self Nature that is the purview of Physics. Therefore, for me Metaphysics is not "the enemy", but the only tool for understanding the mind of the Observer, who is a physical participant in the material world, but also a meta-physical spectator looking on from the outside. :smile:



*1. Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/

*2. Agent : a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.

*3. Ententional :
Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term 'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention

I'm closer to saying that there is no metaphysical speculation; it is rather metaphysical imagination. We speculate only about that which might later be confirmed or disconfirmed. Much of metaphysics consists in playing dialectically with language—what if such and such (such and such that is the dialectical opposite of what we actually encounter) is really the case. — Janus

I agree that much of modern linguistic discussion is like a "what if" word-game played with abstruse terminology that wouldn't mean much to us mere mortals. But I prefer to think of Metaphysics, as Aristotle did : the study of Nature in general, and of ourselves as imaginative beings. This is the essence of Philosophy, as the search for useful Wisdom --- attempting to gain an omniscient worldview.

Since modern Science took over most of the objective pragmatic study of physical Nature though, Philosophy was left with mostly navel-gazing subjective subject-matter : turning its focus inward to learn about the mysterious Self doing the looking. Unfortunately, that self-directed introspection opens us to the slippery-slope of spiraling like a moth around an imaginary Truth. But forums like this can reveal non-self perspectives on the inner world, that may help to pull us out of our spin.

What-if counter-factual games may reveal more about the player, than about the wider world. :smile:

PS___ My response above was tongue-in-cheek, because I suspected that your post was a tease. Hence the :joke: smilie.


Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/

Hence, the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy, self-actualization of personal potential, is inherently a meta-physical "fiction" that we tell ourselves to provide non-physical motivation. That "need" is self-understanding ; including the relationship of the Self to the non-self world. Not just to experience the world, but to "understand the experience". — Gnomon
Or is it merely a shift in consciousness, in feeling, away from the neurotic need to understand, that leads to the deluded belief in the possibility of understanding, the relationship of the self to the non-self world in any way beyond, or more perfect than, the ordinary everyday? — Janus

Are you suggesting that metaphysical speculation is a mental illness similar to the hallucinations of psychosis? If so, how could we tell the difference between our hazy delusions and undiluted reality? Why not just accept the world as it is presented to our filtered awareness, without asking questions about True Reality? What difference does it make to psychotics, if their apparitions don't match those of the psychologist? Why not let the inmates run the asylum?

Perhaps posting on a forum can allow us to share & compare our personal delusions (speculations) with those of other loonies. Besides, how else can we gauge the progress of our "neurotic" need to actualize our personal potential? Do our pet animals feel a compulsion to climb above their subservient status, perhaps to reverse the master/pet relationship? Would it be an advantage to them to go beyond just experiencing whatever comes their way, in order to "understand the experience"? What's so important about broader understanding? Does it make the world any more predictable & controllable? Why not just go with the flow? :joke:

Metaphysics can be fun speculation and because it’s an arena where there are no right or wrong answers simply because those answers are unable to be probed by science means that only good critical thinking need be applied to various metaphysical postulations insuring against logical inconsistencies. — kindred

Yes, Metaphysical speculation is "fun" for those who have time & inclination to explore the big questions that have haunted humanity for eons. It's like a game or puzzle or hobby or lifting weights that won't put food on the table, but will add muscle to the Mind. Science has appropriated the "easy" questions --- that have right or wrong answers --- and left the "hard" questions --- such as the evolutionary role of Consciousness --- to feckless philosophers.

Many modern scientists, and ironically TPF posters, dismiss such open-ended speculation as a fruitless waste of time. But that's because they are prejudiced by their pragmatic - reductive - particular - solemn Belief System*1, typically labeled Materialism, Physicalism, Immanentism, etc., which arbitrarily define tangible Matter as prior to intangible Mind*2. For those of us who take a more imaginative - inclusive - playful perspective, we may try to imagine the world as a complete integrated system of parts, which add-up to a whole that is more than the sum.

It's knowledge of that elusive "more" --- which Aristotle labeled "wisdom"*3 --- that distinguishes idealistic humans from pragmatic animals. Most animals are experts at the necessities of life for their species. But humans are generalists, whose concerns go beyond Self & Tribe & Species & Now to encompass the whole universe, and other times & places. Universal causes & principles can be applied to any problem, including both practical & theoretical issues. For humans, once our practical necessities are taken care of, we have the leisure to turn our attention to a quixotic pursuit of Principles, that govern all of reality, both Mind & Matter : Metaphysics. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical materialism is a philosophical approach that argues that all philosophical, emotional, mental, and conscious states are a result from the material/physical world. Therefore, everything can be explained by looking at matter or ''the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-metaphysical-materialism.html
Note --- It's a faith, not a fact, that matter explains everything.
Philosophers seem to assume that "everything can be explained" by Universal Principles instead of Particular Objects.

*2. “Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points concepts and truth and demonstrative knowledge of what follows from them.” “Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points concepts and truth and demonstrative knowledge of what follows from them.”
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Aristotle-Philosopher.htm

*3. Aristotle Metaphysics :
"Since we are investigating this kind of knowledge, we must consider what these causes and principles are whose knowledge is Wisdom." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,025:1



PHYSICS vs METAPHYSICS = PART vs WHOLE

Metaphysics is the study of everything beyond what physics explains, that is a satisfying enough answer for many people, especially laymen. After all, when we talk about possibility, the modality of metaphysics encompasses the modality of physics. — Lionino

'Metaphysics', by my lights, is the study of that which is beyond the possibility of all experience, but is necessary to understand that experience. — Bob Ross

Those are good practical definitions of a term that is too often dismissed as religious superstitions.

Metaphysical prowling is a uniquely human endeavor. Presumably, few animals would waste their time thinking about thinking. But something in the nature of the human mind evokes not just feelings & experiences, but recursive reflections about those experiences. And it is that inward-aimed "eye" of Reason that allows us to "see" logical possibilities that are not yet actual & real --- "beyond what physics explains".

As a worldview, Metaphysics is the opposite of Materialism, which arbitrarily defines ideas, and ideas-about-ideas, as-if mere objects, whose value is only in feeding physical needs & motives. Metaphysics is not impersonal & objective, but selfish & subjective. Hence, the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy, self-actualization of personal potential, is inherently a meta-physical "fiction" that we tell ourselves to provide non-physical motivation. That "need" is self-understanding ; including the relationship of the Self to the non-self world. Not just to experience the world, but to "understand the experience".

Why do PF posters spend their valuable time fictionalizing reality, if not to feed those abstract high-level needs? Do we get a dopamine boost from writing a few bon mots that sometimes make us sound like grinning idiots? Or is there a higher motive --- more than the thrill of a greyhound chasing a fake rabbit --- that prompts us to stalk the unseen possibilities and unknown probabilities of mysteries, such as the physical or metaphysical underpinnings of Self-Awareness (Consciousness)? And to share that interpretation of universal principles with others who presumably have similar needs. :smile:

Metaphysical Prowling : careful intentional searching for intellectual sustenance

MASLOW'S PYRAMID OF HUMAN NECESSITIES
not just to maintain the body, but to feed the need for intellectual growth

I am not a "holist" : holism denies reductionism and I don't do that. — Ypan1944

Actually, the perspective of Holism does not deny Reductionism, it just offers a different (complementary)*1 way of looking at the world. Some scientists dismiss Holism as a New Age religious belief. But the term originally referred to a systematic approach to understanding the complex interactions of Evolution*2.

Your OP discussion of Strong Emergence sounds to me like a description of a holistic process, in which the unpredictable "emergence" of novel properties is a primary feature*3. But if you want to avoid the prejudicial "pseudoscience" associations with the term*4, you can just call it "Systems Theory", which is now widely used in various sciences studying complexity*5 : Biology, Economics, Ecology, etc. The Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complex Systems --- founded by physicist Murray Gell-Mann, among others --- is a prominent scientific think tank utilizing holistic Systems Theory.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the word "Holism", because I have actually read the book that introduced the term*1. And it had nothing to do with New Age religion. But if your personal experience has biased you against it, please feel free to use alternative terminology, such as "Integrated Whole Systems", to explain how metaphysical functions, such as Consciousness, could emerge from physical systems and biological organisms. :smile:

PS___ "Metaphysical" also has pseudoscience associations, due to its use by Catholic theologians. But the conceptual distinction originated in Aristotle's book on Nature, and referred to holistic comprehension of general principles, instead of reductive knowledge about specific things : "Since we are investigating this kind of knowledge, we must consider what these causes and principles are whose knowledge is Wisdom." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,025:1


*1. Reductionistic and Holistic Science :
Reductionism and holism are in fact interdependent and complementary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3067528/

*2. Holism and Evolution :
Holism and Evolution is a 1926 book by South African statesman Jan Smuts, in which he coined the word "holism", although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism. Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

*3. Holism and Emergence :
The concept of holism informs the methodology for a broad array of scientific fields and lifestyle practices. When applications of holism are said to reveal properties of a whole system beyond those of its parts, these qualities are referred to as emergent properties of that system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

*4. Systems Theory/Holism :
It (General System Theory) was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

*5. Emergence, (Self)Organization, and Complexity :
Many complex systems exhibit emergence: properties at one scale that are not present at another scale. Self-organization can be described when the components of a system interact to produce a global pattern or behavior, without a leader or external controller. Complexity is characterized by interactions. These interactions can generate novel information that is not present in initial nor boundary conditions, limiting prediction.
https://www.santafe.edu/events/emergence-selforganization-and-complexity

Emergent properties are therefore characteristics of the collective and not of their parts. “The whole is more than the parts.” — Ypan1944

This sounds like a description of Holism, as a metaphysical concept relevant to physical things & processes. But you didn't use that controversial term. Was that ententional?

The original title of this thread was spelled "emergency". That may have been a typo, but "Emergence" and "Emergency" are related concepts. "Emergence" usually refers to the gradual evolution of novelty within a system. But "Emergency" suggests a radical break in the chain of causation that requires special treatment. One kind of philosophically important "strong" emergence is the transition from a collection of parts to an integrated system with new properties of its own, such as the evolutionary appearance of self-animated matter, and self-referencing minds in the world. Is that what this thread is about? :smile:

PS___Bedau seems to be trying to avoid the metaphysical implications*2 of Strong Emergence, since it appears to violate the deterministic presumptions of Materialism. Are you defending an alternative metaphysic?

*1. emergence and emergency despite their common origin “are now completely differentiated, emergence meaning emerging or coming into notice, and emergency meaning a juncture that has arisen, especially one that calls for prompt measures”.
https://jazzmigration.com/language/en/emergence-emergency/

*2. I will argue that weak emergence (defined below) meets these three goals: it is metaphysically innocent, consistent with materialism,
http://people.reed.edu/~mab/papers/weak.emergence.pdf

Thanks for your link to Terrence Deacon. — Ypan1944

In another thread on this forum*1, we have been discussing Deacon's seminal concept of Constitutive or Causal Absence, as it relates to a Materialistic worldview. As you might expect, we have been going around in strange-loop circles on how to make sense of a creative causal gap*2 in the chain of Determinism*3, from the perspective that inert Matter is the fundamental element of reality.

For Deacon, that Constitutive Absence is similar to Hofstadter's Strange Loop, as an explanation for the emergence of new links, such as animated matter, in the chain of physical Necessity. One aspect of his theory is Downward Causation*4. Although the thread is currently spinning its wheels, the paradoxical notion of Absential Materialism may be obliquely relevant to your own OP. :smile:


*1. Absential Materialism : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14931/absential-materialism/p1

*2. Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Scientific determinism is the belief that whatever happens has physically determinate causes and is the predictable result of these causes.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759319

*4. The Metaphysics of Downward Causation :
Deacon’s approach is similar. He lists four Aristotelian causes and describes the process of a slow erosion of the plural notion of causality in the history of philosophy and science.
https://philarchive.org/archive/TABTMO

Therefore I like also to call artifacts emergent (even strong emergent): they need an inventor or artist to construct them, and they are in essence unpredictable. — Ypan1944

Cognitive & computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter, in Godel, Escher, Bach. argued that the fortuitous evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind was due to "strange loops" (feedback cycles) in physical processes. Thus, the "creativity" of an otherwise deterministic system is caused by a "glitch in the matrix". Classical physics had no explanation for novelty in evolution. But Quantum Physics discovered a possible gap in cause & effect determinism in the Uncertainty Principle, which makes sub-atomic processes somewhat unpredictable.

Ironically, the looping "glitch" itself is unexpected in classical deterministic physics. Which suggests the logical necessity for "an inventor or artist to construct them". But natural or supernatural creativity of any kind is abhorrent to most scientific worldviews, that are based on the predictability of nature. So, how else can we explain the appearance of Strong Emergence in the world, without assuming either sporadic Divine Intervention, or at least a hypothetical intelligent First Cause, to design or program a dynamic system capable of creating radical novelty, such as self-referencing "featherless bipeds" with big brains, who ask recursive questions about their own origins? :brow:

But how is it 'materialism'? What role does matter occupy in it? — Wayfarer
Your question is important because absential materialism has a knack for looking like immaterialism without being such. — ucarr

If it quacks like Immaterialism, and has a knack for "looking like immaterialism", why not call it "Immaterialism"? Why the evasion? Why must "Ideas" be defined in Materialist terms? Do you think "immaterial" is a code word for Spirit?

The metaphysics (belief system) of "objective" Materialism seems to be implicitly antagonistic to "subjective" Spiritualism & Superstition*1. But what if Ideas are not spiritual entities, but causal forces? Physical Energy*2 is an immaterial abstraction with no material properties, until transformed into the equally abstract quantities of Mass. Our senses interpret those abstractions as "Matter", conjectured by the ancient Greeks as the mother of all things.

I'm still intrigued by your notion of Absential Materialism, but it quacks like Ideal (or imaginary) objects (original matter)*3 waiting in the wings to be invited into the real world : i.e. ideal, not real matter. In any case, if it's absent, it's not real. Your term also seems to specifically contradict the philosophy of Idealism, which posits a similar preternatural source of perfect stuff (Forms) waiting to be transformed into real things. That's OK with me, because Enformationism differs from Idealism and Spiritualism, in that it equates Abstract Concepts with causal processes & functions (Energy), not imaginary homunculae or spooky Spirits.

Perhaps Absential Physicalism*4 would be a more appropriate term for what you have in mind, since Physics is concerned not with matter itself, but with changes in matter due to the effects of Energy. This would put the spotlight on the Active Causal Force (morph ; Form) instead of the inert lumpish lumber (hyle : wood). Newton's mysterious Gravity --- pushing stars around and pulling planets together --- is now defined in terms of Geometry, an abstract mathematical relationship*5. Are Gravity and Geometry material things? How are imaginary abstractions explained in the doctrines of Materialism?

As far as I can tell, Deacon is neither a traditional Materialist (all matter), nor a traditional Idealist (all mind). But he seems to envision a middle ground that accepts both sensory stuff and the rational faculty that makes sense of that stuff, so that philosophers can seriously debate their Ontological status. What he criticizes is Eliminative Materialism : "The assumption that all reference to ententional phenomena can and must be eliminated from our scientific theories and replaced by accounts of material mechanisms". My BothAnd position, like that of Deacon, accepts that Ideas are immaterial, but not spiritual. It's a substance Dualism that is ultimately an essence Monism. It also agrees with Deacon's notion of Teleology & Agency*6, without recourse to supernatural spirits. :smile:

PS___ Absential Materialism sounds to me like a reference to Aristotle's "Potential" : that which is statistically Possible, but not yet Actual.

*1. Materialism vs spiritualism :
Materialism is focused on the outside world, while spiritualism is focused on the inside world. Materialism is based on what we can see and touch, while spiritualism is based on our inner feelings and intuition. Materialism looks at life on the surface, while spiritualism is a deep way of looking at life. https://medium.com/@evan00moore00/materialism-vs-spiritualism-which-is-the-true-path-ad270e405785

*2. Do students conceptualize energy as a material substance? :
In physics, energy is an abstract, non- material quantity associated with the state of a system.
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/PERC02_Loverude-1.pdf

*3. Original Matter :
In Indian philosophy: The nature, origin, and structure of the world (prakriti)
Original Matter is uncaused, eternal, all-pervading, one, independent, self-complete, and has no distinguishable parts; the things that emerge out of this primitive matrix are, on the other hand, caused, noneternal, limited, many, dependent, wholes composed of parts, and manifested.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/matter-philosophy
Note --- How is Absential Materialism different from Original Matter?

*4. Absential Physicalism : the "Law of Attraction" that is evidenced in physical systems as-if caused by a Force, but defined by Einstein in terms of geometric relationships of mutual attraction*5. Coined by Gnomon.
Note --- What is "absent" is matter, what is Potential is logical structure.

*5. Einstein’s geometric gravity :
The key idea of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of spacetime geometry. https://www.einstein-online.info/en/GeomGravity/

*6. Locus of Agency : (Teleodynamics)
Chapter on FreeWill IN p 479
Does Absential Materialism theory allow for FreeWill, Self-Determination, and human Agency?

With strong emergence, the components lose their independence and a new ontological entity with new properties emerges. — Ypan1944

To some, Strong Emergence seems to imply a violation of Determinism, and Downward Causation implies a violation of physical Cause & Effect. Is this seemingly "magical" appearance of novelty the crux of your OP?

In his seminal work, Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon addresses both of those controversial topics. Yet, the Information Philosopher goes into even more detail, and both use the language of Information Theory to explain how the "magic" works. Are you familiar with these authors? :smile:


Emergence : A term used to designate an apparently discontinuous transition from one mode of causal properties to another of a higher rank, typically associated with an increase in scale in which lower-order component interactions contribute to the lower-order interactions. The term has a long and diverse history, but throughout this history it has been used to describe the way that living and mental processes depend upon chemical and physical processes, yet exhibit collective properties exhibited by living and non-mental processes, and in many cases appear to violate the ubiquitous tendencies exhibited by these component interactions
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Emergence :
Information philosophy explains the reality of emergence, because what emerges is new information.

Emergent Dualism :
Reductionist physicalists like Jaegwon Kim argue for the causal closure of the world. Causal closure is the idea that everything that is caused to happen in the world is caused by (earlier) physical events in the world. This eliminates the possibility of a "non-reductive" physicalism, in which higher level emergence properties and capabilities are not reducible to purely physical causes. Closure under physical causes denies the emergence of levels, in particular a non-reducible mental level, capable of downward causation.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergent_dualism.html

No. As you see from The Apple Dictionary, my use of realism adheres to Platonic realism. — ucarr

I'm not familiar with the term "platonic realism". I have always associated him with Idealism. But a quick look at the Stanford article under "Idealism", reveals that some philosophers have switched around the perspective of the term from god's view to human view of what's real. Which is confusing to me. In any case, my thesis begins from a pragmatic meaning of Real, and stops just short of Platonic Ideality. By that I mean, I make no omniscient claims about a super-real realm ; other than to accept, like Kant, that we can speculate on such ideals, but can only deal with the reality here & now.

Plato imagined a heavenly realm of perfect Forms, existing eternally, perhaps in the Mind of God/Logos. And that may be so, but my thesis doesn't depend on such a fairy castle. It does however, stop at the Big Bang Beginning of our space-time Reality, to look beyond the dark abyss of ignorance into a time & place before our Time & Space : like Moses looking down on the promised land, but denied entry. To take that Potential (not yet real) as Actual (really real) is to miss the whole point of the thesis.

When I use the term "Form" (initial cap) it is meant only to be an idealized symbol of the source of all real "forms" that we observe in the material world. I try to avoid the implication that it refers to a heavenly realm that is more real than mundane reality. But some readers may not understand, or accept, that distinction. Enformationism uses Berkeley's metaphor that our material world is "an idea in the Mind of God". But does not assert that there is an entity out there dreaming-up our world. Remember, the map is not the terrain, and the metaphor is not the thing. :smile:

Was Plato an idealist or a realist? :
Both, these categories are not really true opposites, and these categories often have more than one meaning. Plato was a realist to the extent that he posited the reality of abstract objects, i.e., the robust existence of the Forms. These objects, however, he posited to compose the ideal world, i.e., the realm of perfect objects, which are merely instantiated (imperfectly) by the physical objects familiar to you and me.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Plato-an-idealist-or-a-realist
Note --- From a divine perspective, what's Real is also Ideal. But from a human point of view, Reality is what we know via our senses, and Ideality is what we infer must be true, logically, but not necessarily really.

Now you seem to be pitching your tent on the ground of the immaterial. — ucarr

No. I'm pitching a metaphor on the ground of imaginary concepts. Abstractions, such as Qualia or Essence, are indeed immaterial, because we can imagine them, but can't see or touch them. :wink:

Now you're being forthright and clear about where you really stand. I thank-you for your candor here. — ucarr

Did you notice that the homunculus was labeled an imaginary metaphor, not a real material thing? Unlike materialistic Science, idealistic Philosophy can only put its subjects, ideas, under the imaginary microscope of analogy to sensable things. I try not to "stand" on mushy metaphorical ground. :nerd:

Praiseworthy indeed is your admission you don't really know how enformation is functionally structured into an interweave with matter. At present you can't give practical directions to researchers seeking to illuminate the passageways leading from computational neuroscience to abstract consciousness. — ucarr

Thanks for the faint praise, but it's not false modesty. Since I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to be giving "practical directions" to professionals. I do however refer to practicing scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute who are working on such projects from a perspective of Information theory. Do you know of any neuroscientist who has discovered the "interweave" of Mind & Matter? :chin:

Information Theory and Consciousness :
Jost explores consciousness as a process for integrating information from the recent past and near future into the present, where we experience self.
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/juergen-jost-information-theory-and-consciousness

Hard Problem still mysterious after all these years :
Koch bet Chalmers a case of wine that within 25 years—that is, by 2023—researchers would discover a “clear” neural pattern underlying consciousness. . . . That word “clear” doomed Koch. “It’s clear that things are not clear,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality? — ucarr
Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life... And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind — Gnomon
If this quote directly above is what you believe -- and not just your paraphrasing of Information Philosopher -- please explain how it is consistent with your answer to my opening question. — ucarr

Maybe you are interpreting Descartes' "stuff" and "things" as referring to material objects. But both are indeterminate (non-specific) references to "substance" in the Aristotelian sense of essences (qualia) : attributes or classifications that identify, and are projected upon, the real world referent. Remember that languages are generally materialistic, in that their metaphors are pointers to material objects of the 5 senses that we all have in common. Otherwise, we could only communicate our ideas by direct mind-reading.

Your opening question describes a "realist doctrine" that sounds more like Idealism (or alt-reality) to me : postulating a mental realm of "abstract concepts" that exists in parallel to material reality, and may be considered more real than sensory reality. But, as a rule, I don't subscribe to that worldview. For all practical purposes, I am a Materialist and Realist. Yet for philosophical considerations (ideas about ideas) I must necessarily think somewhat like an Idealist.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that abstractions are not real : you can't eat an ideal cupcake, and an imaginary rose would not smell sweet. "Red" is a subjective conceptual quality, not an objective real thing. "Life" (or elan vital) is a quality of animated biological entities, not some kind of ghost that inhabits material objects. But we communicate the abstract concept of animation by means of analogies to processes or activities we observe with the eyes, and make sense of with the mind.

Likewise, "Potential" is not an objective thing out there in an ideal realm, but merely a mental projection of statistical Probability. We don't perceive Potential with our senses, but conceive it with our rational mind. And "Mind" is not a thing floating around in the aether, but simply the Function of a brain : what that ball of neurons does to allow us to navigate the real world.

Again, if you are accusing me of "embracing" the established doctrines of traditional Idealism--- or of traditional Materialism for that matter --- the answer is still "no". My personal -ism is Enformationism, which has a tentative foot in both worlds. :cool:

So, from your above quotes: a) you believe there is top-down causation from enformation -- ( meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter. -- to mind and then to body; b) you think the connection natural, not supernatural; c) you believe enformation, mind and matter form one interwoven continuum. Please explain how -- given your endorsement of this seamless continuum from enformation to mind to matter -- the first two links in the chain -- both immaterial -- connect with material brain? — ucarr

Ah! That is the "Hard Question" for which materialistic science has no answer, and that idealistic philosophies merely take for granted. My thesis postulates an explanation --- not scientifically, but philosophically --- for "how" Mind & Matter interrelate. By analogy, the relationship is similar to that between fluid Water and solid Ice ; the are merely different Forms of the same Essence : The Power/Potential to cause change in Form. If that leaves you thinking, huh?, then you need to refer to the website, which begins at the beginning, and works down from a> to b> to c>. :wink:

With your articulations of causation -- in both directions -- you appear to do what Deacon indicts in the early part of Incomplete Nature: sneaking into the system an unannounced homunculus who -- without explanation -- brings about a material/immaterial interface. — ucarr

Yes. The metaphorical "homunculus" in my thesis is Causal EnFormAction, the hypothetical precursor of physical Energy, and of biological Matter, and of metaphysical Thought Processes. The "explanation" for how the "little man" came to live in the human mind is expounded in the website & blog & and is on-going in this forum. It's not a final Theory of Everything, but I'm working on it. :nerd:

Enformationism :
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Thesis Abstract :
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- The Matrix movie is used as a metaphor for the role of Generic Information (raining code) in both the Machine world (abstract & Ideal) and the Zion world (concrete and real).

Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

You don't seem to understand how or why I interpret Deacon's Incomplete Nature in terms of Information, and to imply that Mind was transformed from Matter via the natural process of EnFormAction. If you think of "Information" as the mechanical process defined by Shannon, my usage as the dynamic Power to Transform won't make any sense. Deacon said that "The contemporary notion of information is likewise colloquially conceived of in substance-like terms" (p373), but went on to define it in energetic & relational & immaterial terms.*1

An article on the Information Philosopher's website*2 might reveal some significant implications of Deacon's philosophy of Absence that your Materialistic worldview overlooked. His three-part outline begins at the bottom with inert non-living Matter pushed around by Thermodynamics, then progresses to the mid-level Homeodynamics --- perhaps better described as homeostasis, since the physical changes are maintaining the status quo, with little innovation. But in the third level of his triad, Teleodynamics*3, non-living Matter mysteriously transforms into Living stuff, with the potential for organic growth, instead of mere gravitational clumping. During that transition from inert matter to dynamic physics, Evolution reveals a directional character aimed at some implicit future goal : Telos.

Level One begins as Plasma : just atoms whirling randomly in the void. Next, Level Two adds the arrow of Time, progressing & complexifying, a direction that will become apparent only to reflective Minds in the Third Level. Information in level One is the form of condensed Energy we know as Matter : precipitated out of the original chaotic Plasma into 3-dimensional res extensa. Then, Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life. And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind*4.

If this philosophical & cosmological approach to Deacon's work, begins to make sense to you, we can discuss it further. Meanwhile, I suggest you take a look at how the Information Philosopher interprets Deacon's Absentialism*5. :smile:


*1, Deacon's Absentialism :
"Information is the archetypical absential concept" IN p373

*2. Terrence Deacon :
Deacon's 2011 work Incomplete Nature has a strong triadic structure, inspired perhaps by an important influence from semiotics—the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce 's triad of icon, index, and symbol. Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic. The first two levels reflect the ancient philosophical dualism of materialism and idealism, or body and mind, respectively.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3.Teleodynamics :
"Deacon's name for the third level in his dynamics hierarchy. It is built on and incorporates the two lower levels — the first level is physical and material, the second adds an informational and immaterial aspect."
"On Deacon's third level, "a difference that makes a difference" (cf.Gregory Bateson and Donald MacKay) emerges as a purposeful process we can identify as protolife."

*4. Information is Mind :
"Deacon sees clearly that information is neither matter nor energy; for example, knowledge in an organism's "mind" about the external constraints that its actions can influence."

*5. Absentialism :
He reifies this absence and says cryptically that "a causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences." He calls this a "figure/ground reversal" in which he focuses on what is absent rather than present, likening it to the concept of zero, the holes in the "(w)hole." We can agree with Deacon that ideas and information are immaterial, neither matter nor energy, but they need matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. And when they are embodied, they are obviously present (to my mind)
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Your above quote expresses the crux of our disagreement about the correct approach to practicing philosophy. You say, "Do philosophy by avoiding materialistic physics." I say, "Do philosophy by embracing materialistic physics." — ucarr

I have been enjoying the philosophical exercise of our on-going give & take dialog. Too many threads on this forum quickly descend into polarized name-calling : e.g. Materialism = Objective Truth vs Idealism = Subjective Fantasies, or vice-versa. You mentioned that I seem to be straddling those poles, but I view it as encompassing both "incomplete" worldviews into a single universal comprehension. My BothAnd perspective is not a controversy-ducking cop-out, but a recognition that there is philosophical value in both views : local & universal. Hence, an open-mind can make use of both sources of information : to see the world in stereo. Fortunately, we do seem to have some common ground in Deacon's seemingly paradoxical insight on the Power of Absence*1, but differ on which ancient traditional bi-polar worldview, Materialism vs Idealism, should govern our interpretation of its implications*2*3.

A typical approach to clashing worldviews is to accept one and reject the other. But I prefer to enjoy the best of both worldviews, to see both the material part (element) and the conceptual whole (system). To that end, grasping the manifold roles of broadly-conceived Information (ranging from matter to mind) provides a key to the puzzle of age-old philosophical conflicts. Claude Shannon opened the door to this new understanding with his technical definition of a mental phenomenon : ideas. But his narrow materialistic engineering approach, while effective for technical purposes, ignored a long history of philosophical scrutiny of the rational faculty. In the 21st century, Information Theory has exploded into a wide range of scientific & philosophical investigations*4, ranging from Simplicity to Complexity, and from singular Kernel to total Comprehension.

Therefore, I propose that we "do philosophy", not by avoiding the Science of Ideas*5, or by avoiding the Science of Matter, but by combining the insights of each into a more complete Science of Everything : from Big Bang Causation, to the appearance of organized Matter, to the emergence of inquiring Minds, to the retrospective of Cosmology. Thus, embracing both Mind and Matter as instances of Reality*6. :smile:



*1. The Power of Absence :
Deacon has independently arrived at an understanding of absence as causally efficacious in the emergence of life and consciousness
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/rea.12.2.y733588233q1m086
Note --- Deacon sees the "hidden connections" that are not apparent from a materialistic perspective.

*2. Materialism = Truth
To be a materialist is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense-organs. To acknowledge objective truth, i.e., truth not dependent upon man and mankind, is, in one Way or another, to recognise absolute truth.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5.htm

*3. Idealism = Truth :
The essential orientation of idealism can be sensed through some of its typical tenets: “Truth is the whole, or the Absolute”; “to be is to be perceived”; “reality reveals its ultimate nature more faithfully in its highest qualities (mental) than in its lowest (material)”; “the Ego is both subject and object.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism

*4. Information Theory and Complex Systems :
Welcome to Santa Fe Institute ... Information theory (in particular, the maximum information entropy formalism) provides a way to deal with such complexity . . .
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/papers/57-information-theory-a-foundation-for-complexity-

*5. Ideonomy -- The Science of Ideas :
Supposedly the word ideonomy was first coined by the French Encyclopedists, and they, too, are said to have used it to designate a science of ideas. What is unclear is whether these men made any actual contribution to the building of ideonomy, especially in the present sense. Perhaps they simply employed the word as a synonym for logic, pantology, philosophy in general, or philosophy applied to creative or social purposes.
https://ideonomy.mit.edu/intro.html

*6. Something Is Missing from the Materialist Framework :
Something is missing from the theoretical framework of natural science if it cannot explain the function and purpose that are ubiquitous in life. And yes, the answer is there in plain sight in Professor Deacon’s own words. The truth is that “ententional” properties are foundational. They are the genesis of all purpose in life.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/something-is-missing-from-the-materialist-framework/

I'm asking if you accept "grammar" as a synonym for "metaphysics." — ucarr

No.

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality? — ucarr

No.

Is Causal Information a label for metaphysics as a whole, or is it a subdivision of general metaphysics? — ucarr

No. It's merely a description of the power to enform (Potential) in the physical world.

Are you claiming top-down causation from Enformation to matter_mass_energy? — ucarr

Yes. But by means of natural laws, not divine intervention.

"The downward . . . causation (from whole to part) is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities".
Deacon, Incomplete Nature p161

You're saying you don't see connections between my examples and philosophically engaging metaphysical principles? — ucarr

Yes.

What is the metaphysics of materialism? — ucarr

Any generalization of principles (all things are . . . .) from less than comprehensive experience is considered a metaphysical concept, not a physical or empirical fact*1. Also, portraying some principle as universal, implies either a First Cause or Eternal Being. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics of Materialism :
Materialism, is a causal theory of scientific reality. It is the argument that when we pronounce anything in our sense-experience to be real we imply an independent cause of it. According to the principle of relativity, the inference is entirely unnecessary and to insist on it unscientific.
https://www.nature.com/articles/108400a0

Never mind my absential materialism label. Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

No. I have repeatedly denied that unwarranted implication. However, I do assert that Matter is not the primary cause of all phenomena in the world. My thesis goes into great detail to support the idea that Causal Information is prior to both physical Energy and malleable Matter.*2 :cool:

*2. 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
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

Please elaborate your refutation of his unscientific concepts of end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution. Also, please check out this conversation re: its pertinence to teleodynamics: — ucarr

I was not "refuting" his notion of Teleology/Teleonomy, but instead noting that most scientists would say it's a religious concept, not a scientific principle*3. For me, Teleology is a legitimate philosophical inference from the observation of direction in evolution. For those, who find the notion of Ententional Evolution*4*5 unacceptable, Deacon offered the alternative term : Teleonomy, which attempts to avoid the implication of Design in Nature. However, Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection" (for fitness criteria) implied intentional Choice, but attributed it to Nature instead of to God. :wink:

*3. Teleological Misconceptions :
Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective “teleological” to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z

*4. Ententional :
Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term 'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention

*5. Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
Enformationism theory observes that Evolution shows signs of progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Here's another notable difference between us. Whereas you see my examples of ententional properties as being superficial due to a lack of philosophical essence, I see them as being substantial due to their mundanity. — ucarr

Your mundane examples may be "substantial"*6 enough for scientific endeavors, but lack the essential "qualities" or general principles necessary for philosophical purposes. :smile:

*6. Substance
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy

This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover

The hypothetical Big Bang was an energetic outburst, but from what or where? And the projected Heat Death is the end of that cosmic energetic cycle. In a philosophical sense, the First Cause of the "Bang" was Aristotelian Potential which actualized into the Causal forces of Nature. But, like a run-down cell phone battery, the original potential fades back into the chaos of entropy, which no longer has the "ability" to cause Change. But the Potential for future energy remains in the chemistry of the battery, which only needs re-formatting to again produce useful Energy.

However, if the conservation law is correct, the cosmic battery should be rechargeable. A recent discovery of physics is that active Energy is merely one Form of Causal Power. It can also transform into Mass/Matter, and into the Entropy of Information*1, as processed by Minds & Computers. All physical batteries have limited discharging cycles, before they need to go back to the manufacturer to be recycled by the original Battery-maker. Plato envisioned that creation event as disorganized Chaos constructed into orderly Cosmos as-if by a metaphorical artisan*2. But, the a priori First Cause of the demiurge and creation event was left as a mystery.

Without more information about the precursor or pre-conditions of the Big Bang (our modern demiurge) we can only say that the philosophical principle of Potential for Actual causation necessarily pre-existed the realization of all natural forces. Perhaps that Platonic Form was something like a programmer encoding Information into Energy & Matter??? :smile:


*1. Is information a form of energy? :
Information is not itself energy. But you can trade entropy of information for entropy of state, which let's you turn "waste" energy, such as ambient heat, into useful energy. That's basically what Maxwell's Demon does.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/information-is-a-form-of-energy.461784/

*2. Plato's Universe :
The universe, or Cosmos, is a living being endowed with a soul (30C f.). The Cosmos was fashioned from a pre-existing chaos by a Divine Craftsman, the Demiurge, using the Forms as models for sensible objects (29D f.). Plato does not say what, if anything produced the Demiurge or the chaos.
https://physics.bgsu.edu/p433/Spacetime4.html

BATTERY ORGANIZED INTO OPPOSITE POLES WITH POTENTIAL BETWEEN

Your above quote expresses the crux of our disagreement about the correct approach to practicing philosophy. You say, "Do philosophy by avoiding materialistic physics." I say, "Do philosophy by embracing materialistic physics." — ucarr

I gradually realized that our communication problem stems mostly from our different ways of doing philosophy. We are talking about Deacon's radical scientific & philosophical Worldview, which does not yet have an official label of its own : can we call it Absentialism? Absence is like Zero*1 in that it is a metaphysical concept with no material instances. So, a materialistic approach is like shooting at ghosts.

One thing that makes his metaphysical thesis difficult, yet admirable, is that it introduces novel terminology that often sounds paradoxical. He is both criticized & blamed for straying from conventional scientific & philosophical language*2. But then, he is a linguistic anthropologist, so what would you expect? Linguistic philosopher Wittgenstein*3 famously aphorized : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Ironically, he himself spoke of arcane topics, and his works have been characterized as "inscrutable" by critics. That may be due to his attempt to speak of unspeakable (metaphysical) concepts.

In the Philosophy Now magazine (159), Slavoj Zizek noted that "Wittgenstein himself said that there are things impossible to talk about, such as metaphysical speculations". And that may be why modern Materialists try to avoid speaking of such non-things. Yet, Zizek suggested an alternative to dogmatic religious or doctrinal scientific language. "Poetry is an attempt to put in words what cannot be said --- to evoke it". And that seems to be how modern philosophy treads the line between physical Reality and Metaphysical Ideality, on topics such as Consciousness. An old admonition to young writers was: "don't say, show!". Meaning, don't describe appearances in ordinary words, but illustrate essences in images. That's also why, in Poetry and Philosophy, what can't be described materially, must be evoked metaphorically. Which may require novel word associations, that are called "neologisms".

Deacon didn't include a glossary of his ad hoc new-words in the book, but a few others have posted their own Deactionaries on the net to supplement their own interpretations of his unconventional meanings*4. Although his title topic, Absence, is not an acceptable notion in Materialistic Physics, it is essential to Mathematical Physics*1. Also, the notion of Evolution as Teleological crosses the taboo line between Physics and Metaphysics. You seem to interpret his Absentialism as-if it remains safely within the orthodox metaphysics of Materialism, while I view it as supporting the novel metaphysics of Informationism*5, which is amenable to both Science and Philosophy, both Physics and Metaphysics.

The main reason I & others have had difficulty understanding your Absential Materialism worldview, is that it seems to be a vain attempt to squeeze a metaphysical philosophical concept into a physical scientific box, and to describe intangibles in materialistic language. Deacon himself skirted the line between philosophy and science, but he was often forced by his own reasoning to include unscientific concepts, such as end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution*4 to convey his metaphysical interpretations of "hidden connections" that exist right in front of us. They are hidden to our physical senses, but apparent to our metaphysical reasoning. For me, a more "correct approach" to practicing philosophy is to accept both physical and metaphysical evidence, not to reject one or the other. :smile:

PS___My approach to doing Philosophy does not "avoid materialistic physics", but it does recognize that 19th century Physics and 17th century Mechanics have little to offer for perennial philosophical questions. On the other hand, my thesis does lean heavily on the insights of semi-material (wave-particle) Quantum Physics regarding Mind & Consciousness questions.*6


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshiped it, and the Church used it to fend off heretics. Now it threatens the foundations of modern physics. For centuries the power of zero savored of the demonic; once harnessed, it became the most important tool in mathematics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

*2. Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness :
Thus, as noted above, deacon is not a materialist who believes that the human mind is reducible to complex neural activity in the brain. but he also believes that human subjectivity is not based on the presupposition of a soul or immaterial principle of self-organization at work within a human being. --- Joseph Bracken
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjtheophil.38.2-3.0138

*3. Ludwig Wittgenstein :
By showing the application of modern logic to metaphysics, via language, he provided new insights into the relations between world, thought, and language and thereby into the nature of philosophy. . . .
Starting with a seeming metaphysics, Wittgenstein sees the world as consisting of facts (1), rather than the traditional, atomistic conception of a world made up of objects. Facts are existent states of affairs (2) and states of affairs, in turn, are combinations of objects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
Note --- Facts & States are not material things, but mental snapshots of reality. As such, those Ideas do not exist in the same sense as Real things, and can't be adequately described in materialistic language --- although some may try. That's why your real world examples (post above) of your own neologisms seemed superficial to me, and missed the philosophical essence of the concept.

*4. Deacon's Glossary :
Teleological (Teleology): Purposive, or end-directed (the study of such relationships). Philosophically related to Aristotle's concept of a "final cause"
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/#glossary

*5. Metaphysics :
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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*6. Is quantum physics materialistic?
Quantum mechanics, which developed in the early twentieth century, has been a serious blow to materialism. There is no way to make sense of it if immaterial entities like information, observation, or the mind are not real. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder struggles against the effects of this fact.
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/11/quantum-physics-axed-materialism-many-hope-the-world-wont-know/

An everyday example of an end-oriented constraint comes in the example of a woman who decides she'll eliminate dairy products from her meals — ucarr

Thanks for the "everyday" examples. But I was hoping for more general philosophical or physical principles behind each of those neologisms.

For instance, I can interpret "end oriented constraint" as functionally similar to a Natural Law : a limitation on the freedom of Causation. In a teleological sense, the as-if Lawmaker opposes positive Energy with negative Entropy, so that, working together, those freedoms & constraints will guide the as-if mechanism of Evolution toward some desired end state. Without constraints, total freedom would be chaotic & directionless. The "End State" is Aristotle's Final Cause : the as-if Purpose of the Universe.

Likewise, "absential binding" is like an unobstructed channel of emptiness --- the path of least resistance --- within a concresence of Matter (e.g. the center hole of a wagon wheel) that makes room for orderly movement of the whole arrangement of spokes & rims. The hole is not a material thing, but it has a physical function : to bind the spokes into an operational mechanical system.

Similarly, a "strategic constraint" works like a "constitutive constraint" to forge an unobstructed path toward a future state that is deemed desirable by the planner. For example, horse rounders used to build a fence with a carefully-placed opening to allow the driven horses in, but to block their exit. A strategy is a plan of action that takes into account useful options and possible setbacks.

Regarding "nested blockchains" within "dynamical systems", I imagine a decentralized-but-intertwined network of interrelations that function as rule-restricted paths of interaction within a constantly changing apparatus of disparate parts. The "chains" are not material or physical, but functional in the service of a specified overall system goal. For a cryptocurrency blockchain, the purpose is to allow exchange of metaphysical value without physical money.

All of these "constraints" & "chains" & "bonds" are metaphysical in the sense of Absence of Matter, but they play a key role in the operations of physics. :smile:

Deacon's Absent Constraints :
By "constraint" he means "the property of being restricted or being less variable than possible." By "absence" he means that constraint is a negative property qualifying a collection or ensemble of constituent parts or members: "It is a way of referring to what is not exhibited, but could have been, at least under some circumstances" . By "constitutive absence" he means what is the case "irrespective of whether this is registered by any act of observation". So constraint thus understood is metaphysically grounded in something constitutive of the way nature works. This kind of constraint is not externally imposed by some outside agency but internally by reason of "the dynamical organization of a somewhat diverse class of phenomena which share in common the tendency to become spontaneously more organized and orderly over time due to constant perturbation". Deacon cautions that these processes of internal organization have been called "self-organizing," but that in fact there is no self to do the organizing of their inanimate components
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/675195/summary
Note --- no actual Self, but the appearance of an as-if absential Self.


NESTED SYSTEMS & SUB-SYSTEMS OF PERMITTED PATHS

This is my first post on this forum and I would like to debate about the hypothetical end of humanity and what would be possible scenarios that could happen. — Ege

There is a philosophical difference between a> Climate Change Denial, and b> Climate Disaster Panic, and c> Stoic acceptance that Sh*t Happens that we don't like. All through history, especially in the Bible, doom-saying prophets have seen portents pointing toward catastrophe, and predicted the immanent end of the world. Their projections of future events are typically limited to the current generation, in order to make the necessity for a course change more scary --- as in the recent slew of Dystopian movies, graphically illustrating what will happen if we (humanity) don't change our evil ways.

Typically. the "End Times" are portrayed as just around the corner. But history is a record of such failed Apocalyptic prophecies*1. So, I wouldn't listen to the self-appointed prophets-of-doom (short-term tacticians), and instead pay attention to the long-term strategists*2, who point to anthropogenic trends that are subject to remediation via Culture Shift : population control, solar power, etc. Cultural change is rapid, compared to climate change, but it has inertia comparable to addictions. Like Democracy, culture change is erratic & messy, but waiting for God to purify the evil world with fire is self-defeating. Humanity may not fix the problem with top-down action, but forward-thinking humans can make incremental changes in the downward trend.

So, why don't short-term downward trends go all the way down to the bottom? That's because nature & culture are affected by countervailing forces. Until recently, human activities had little impact on global climate swings. But as the long-term chart below illustrates, Culture is now a major player in the climate game : Anthropogenic change, both positive & negative. So, if humanity is fouling its own nest, a bit of countervailing house-cleaning is in order. But burning-down the house, and moving to Mars, may not be a viable solution. Instead, let's just do what humans have always done : adapt to unfavorable conditions (e.g. Ice Ages), by changing those conditions over which we have control*3 (learn to make domesticated fire). Meanwhile, be cool. :cool:


*1. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events :
Predictions of apocalyptic events that would result in the extinction of humanity, a collapse of civilization, or the destruction of the planet have been made since at least the beginning of the Common Era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

*2. A worst-case scenario is the most severe possible outcome that can be projected to occur in a given situation. Conceiving of worst-case scenarios is a common form of strategic planning to prepare for and minimize contingencies that could result in accidents, quality problems, or other issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst-Case_Scenario_series

*3. Stoic Serenity Prayer : "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The Stoics grasped the paradox of acceptance, that accepting pain rather than struggling against it often makes it more bearable.

LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE

In a functional relationship, there's an operator that transforms input into output. . . . .
Still furthermore, the medium propagating the object/observer relationship is material-physical spacetime. . . . .
Absential materialism, possessing both properties of waves and of particles, presents itself as a knot of complexity fostering the-glass-is-half-full-half-empty debates. — ucarr

Do you have a scientific name for this transforming "operator", other than mundane Energy? You say that this mysterious "medium" is a space-time phenomenon. How is it detected, and is there a conventional name for the propagator of this Body/Mind or Object/Observer relationship? You say that Absential Materialism possesses the properties of both Waves and Particlesas in Wave-Particle Duality.

Therefore, AM is a Wavicle*1 --- yes? Hence, a combination*2 of a non-local (but entangled) Force or Field, and simultaneously a local (disentangled) Particle? That counter-intuitive notion does not work in classical Newtonian physics, but is accepted as as "the central mystery of quantum mechanics"*3, and described by you as "a knot of complexity" --- perhaps a Gordian's Knot, that can't be disentangled by mechanical physics, but may be resolved by a philosophical compromise?*4ab :wink:


*1. Wavicle : an entity having characteristic properties of both waves and particles.

*2. BothAnd :
The BothAnd Principle of Complementarity is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Idealism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods. The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. the central mystery of quantum mechanics :
I don't actually find quantum mechanics to be much more mysterious than classical mechanics is. It is counterintuitive and very surprising, yes, but it is actually a resolution of a mystery, which was: how do particles on atomic scales behave?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-central-mystery-of-quantum-mechanics
Note --- Wavicles behave like a child : sometimes proper, but sometimes mis-behaving.

*4a. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements (forms) of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- this hypothetical precursor of Matter & Energy & Mind could be described as a Mind/Matter "link", or "medium", or "propagator", or "knot of complexity".

*4b. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, mental Information is colorless, odorless, formless, and imaginary. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, EnFormAction gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality.
This seeming break between mind and body is in reality absential materialism. Below is Deacon's blockchain of nested dynamical systems bi-directionally linked across space and time: — ucarr

A lot of your technical terminology is not in my personal word-stock, or in Deacon's glossary ; making communication difficult. Please give me a functional definition (what it does) and a real-world example (what it is) of the following terminology : a> "end oriented constraints" ; b> "absentially tied" ; c> "Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design" ; d> "blockchain of nested dynamical systems". An explanation in terms of (what it is not) may also be acceptable, since Deacon often begins with a negative definition for some of his counterintuitive concepts.

Also, a more detailed discussion of "seeming break between mind and body is . . . ." would be helpful. Descartes expressed his understanding of those distinctive categories in terms of dual substances : one material and the other experiential. But your Absential Materialism seems to imply that Matter & Mind are "bi-directionally linked" by some mysterious force or power "across space and time". I have my own ideas about what that interactive Link might be. But I'd like to hear your description, in terminology that I might be familiar with. But remember, I have no formal training in Philosophy, so my vocabulary is limited to a few commonly used words. :smile:



The Deactionary :
Deacon loves his neologisms and his redefinitions of existing terms.
https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/the-deactionary-a-glossary-of-terms-from-terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature/

Absential : a state of things not yet realized
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Potential : the power to actualize a possibility ; to transform Absential into Real. (gnomon)

Furthermore, the observing mind-brain-body is physically entangled with the object of its observation — ucarr

Yes, but the Mind can be philosophically & categorically dis-entangled from the body-brain. That's why I prefer to avoid getting tangled-up in materialistic physics, on a forum designed for discussion of meta-physics. The object of a physical experiment is a material Object, external to the Brain, but the object of mental "observation" is a Subject, internal to the Mind. The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is only made more complicated by including the entangled neurons in the definition of Mind. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Materialism does not allow us to make such categorical distinctions. :smile:

Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist — ucarr

I would interpret your use of "absentially tied" as referring to a Cause & Effect relationship. For example, in the Photoelectric Effect, incoming invisible inferred Photons are the cause of the observed effect (Electrons) flowing as energy in a material substrate. This is a physical transformation, but the photons, while moving at lightspeed are massless, and electrons are both non-local and massless while "flowing". Therefore, in their ghostly Cause & Effect forms they have no material attributes ; hence Absent as far as our matter-detecting senses are concerned.

Only at rest can they be legitimately called "particles of matter". But "rest" is not a normal state for a Photon*1. So, in its normal invisible & massless state, does it qualify as materially Absent"? This how I interpret Deacon's "Causal" or "Constitutive" Absence : immaterial cause produces material effects. "Causal Absence" is what I call the Potential to become Actual. One "Constraint" in an electrical system is Voltage, which is not a thing but an inherent limitation of the system as a whole. :nerd:

*1. Is it possible for a photon to be at rest? :
No, a photon in vacuum is required by its very nature to move at the speed of light c.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-photon-to-be-at-rest

If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality. — ucarr

You seem to be saying something close to my own understanding, but using terminology that I'm not familiar with. My knowledge of "blockchain" is limited to an abstract money-market concept of a "distributed database" in which the "chain" is not a physical thing, but a software network of mental trust interrelationships. So, those "interwoven dynamical causes" seem to be Absent in the same sense as immaterial ideas (promises), that can have material effects (buying power) on the real world.

For example, we can think of New York City as a cultural machine for shared economic progress. The material infrastructure --- skyscrapers, roads, etc.--- and immaterial Constraints --- laws, contracts, etc --- are bound together by the mental ententions of millions of entrepreneurs. Is that anything like what you mean by "blockchain"? Without the immaterial "design constraints" of the blockchain system the "products" (imaginary cryptocurrency) wouldn't exist. :wink:

Non-material Culture :
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, practices, norms, values, history, characteristics, knowledge, and artifacts of a social group. Culture includes language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music, and arts. These elements combine to create the culture of the social group and impact how members of the group think, act, and acquire possessions as a shared way of living.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-culture-material-and-nonmaterial-culture.html

Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. — ucarr

Because Deacon's notion of Absence is relevant to my own information-based philosophical worldview, I'm still trying to make sense of your materialistic understanding of "Absence" (noun) & "Absential" (adjective). In the worldview of Materialism : all things we observe in nature are by definition "material". But, to be a complete philosophical concept, that definition should explain both objects observed by the senses, and changes in those objects over time (functions) due to energetic inputs & outputs, and relationships between objects that are not seen, but inferred. In what meaningful sense are Abstract Nouns*1, such as Absence, Function, and Causation, referring to material things, and not to ideas about things or processes? Of course, mental abstractions are dependent on a material Brain, but scientifically, their referents have no objective material substance, only subjective meaning. It's the material stuff that is Absent or Absential.

In psychology, Mind is a function of brains. In math, physics, and biology, a Function is a causal concept (input causes output), but not a material object. So, a more appropriate statement would say that "mental functions are dependent on the process of causation in material things". Hence, the Function is not a "material thing", but an ongoing process of change in a material object, more like Energy. For example, in biology, Life is a function of Causation in a material substrate. As noted in the Quora opinion below*2, Abstractions are "products of physical reality". But those Absential products are not made of Presential matter. So, my question is not about the walnut-shaped Vessel, but about the contents we call Mind : the "Substance" or "Essence" of subjective Ideas, as defined by Aristotle*3.

With that clarification, I can provisionally agree with the first part of your assertion above : "mental functions are dependent on material things" ; but not with the second part : "because they {mental functions} too are material things, albeit absentially". How can something "absential" be material? Isn't Presence an essential element of the definition of "material". Deacon's "absence" seems to be a commonsense reference to the philosophical concept of "potential". Aristotle, in his discussion of Motion, Causality, & Physiology, contrasted present material Actual with absent immaterial Potential. From that perspective, Absence (no-thing) or Absential (quality of nothingness) is the opposite of material Presence. So, how can you conclude that something Absential is also Material? What kind of matter is nothingness made of? In other words, what is the Substance of Absence? Instead of "material thing" do you mean "a philosophically meaningful concept"?

I'm gradually coming to realize that Materialism is an unprovable metaphysical Axiom (presumption), not an empirical scientific Theory (inference from facts). It's more of an attitude or belief than a fact. So, I guess I can't expect such beliefs to make sense in an objective manner. Regarding a scientific or philosophical explanation of Consciousness --- including awareness of abstractions like Absence --- Terrence Deacon said "Materialism, the view that there are only material things and their interactions in the world, seems impotent here" {my emphasis}. He also referred to “the antimaterialist claim” that “like meanings & purposes, consciousness may not be something there in any typical sense of being materially or energetically embodied, and yet may still be materially causally relevant” p7 .{my bold} Your concept of Absential Materialism may be related to the notion of “materially relevant”. :smile:


*1. Abstract nouns :
We have four categories when it comes to nouns: 1.Person 2.Place 3.Animal 4.Thing. Everything in the above list can be labelled as "things". Things that are visible to the eyes. Whereas, abstract nouns contain feelings, like happiness,sadness, which can't be seen. https://www.quora.com/What-nouns-arent-words-that-refer-to-things

*2. How can scientific materialism explain the existence of abstract non-material entities? : You need to unwind your definition of Materialism to match what materialists (or physicalists) really believe, which is "matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter." That doesn't mean that we don't believe that mind or ideas don't exist, but they are a product of our physical reality. https://www.quora.com/How-can-scientific-materialism-explain-the-existence-of-abstract-non-material-entities
Note --- My position is that Abstractions are indeed “a product of physical reality”, but they have no material Substance.

*3. What according to Aristotle is the essence of a thing? :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://brainly.ph/question/25605568

*3. Substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere. . . . Benedict de Spinoza . . . . there was only one substance, which constitutes the whole of reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
Note --- a better term for Spinoza's all-encompassing "substance" may be non-local Essence.

Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. . . . .
Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something
distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example. — ucarr

As is the case with many disagreements on this forum, some key words are used with unconventional, or abstrusely technical, meanings. So they need to be carefully defined in terms that can be understood intuitively, from personal Experience : the feeling of personal affectation. For example, I can understand the general idea of the math symbol for an imaginary number "i" in your example. That's because I too experience imagination. But, as a non mathematician, I don't experience the combination of real & unreal quantities, for the same reason that I have no experience of Infinity.

Likewise, I can read your definition : "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" as a possible-but-not-obvious-relationship. But it doesn't mean anything to me intuitively. It does however, suggest a relationship similar to "Potential vs Actual", where a Potential thing is "distanced" from reality, but is statistically "connected" to a Probability definition in the realm of Possibility. That imaginary "realm" is not Real, but Ideal, since it has no material instances, only abstract imagery. It's not a Thing, but the ideal concept of a presumably possible Thing. In your terminology, the imaginary object is literally "materially absential" : the quality of lacking a material instance. Or in Deacon's vocabulary : "Constitutive Absence".

Deacon describes his notion of "Absence" in ideal, not material, terms. It's something we know by reasoning not by observation. Hence, the idea of a particular Absent thing, such as a future state of a material object, is literally Immaterial and Ideal. So, describing something as "absent" merely means missing from its expected place. But "absential" describes a quality as-if it was a quantity ; non-existence as-if it was existence. In that case, it's a hypothetical Difference that makes no meaningful Difference. Except perhaps in the sense that Deacon described "Aboutness" or "Entention" as a "non-material property of minds" (index) :

Your distinction between "materially absent" is equivalent to the numerical quantity Zero : as in "no specified material object there". But "materially absential" is similar to the conceptual quality of Nothingness : as in "nothing of any kind there". Except that the ironic meaning of that combination of words is an oxymoron, like "deafening silence". Therefore, a more useful definition of "materially absential", for me, would be merely "Potential" : conceptually possible but not yet materially actual; or "Latent" : possessing a quality that could become a quantity.

In terms of my own Information-based worldview, your "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" could be translated into "No real or actual or material form, but having the potential to become a real thing, by means of the power of EnFormAction". :smile:

Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.

Ententional : an adjective that applies to the class of objects and phenomena that refer to or are in some other way "about" something not present.

Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Latent : existing in hidden or dormant form

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. The term is derived from Wheeler's "it from bit" equation of matter & information. Which is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of Energy and Matter/Mass.

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Interesting JSTOR review of Deacon from a process-theology oriented academic:
Is Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness Still Incomplete? (free but requires registration.)
I'm going to call it a day with Deacon, I have other fish to fry. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry you're not as impressed with Deacon as I am. Perhaps you need to skip forward to the Epilogue --- after the chapter on Consciousness --- where he says : "In the natural sciences there appears to be no place for right/wrong, meaningful/meaninglessness, beauty/ugliness, good/evil, love/hate, and so forth". Hence, the need for philosophy to explore those subjective territories. He also proposes : "rethinking the frame of natural sciences in a way that has the metaphysical sophistication to integrate the realm of absential phenomena as we experience them." I have been hoping that he would publish a sequel to Incomplete Nature, that would focus more on the philosophical applications than the scientific evidence. That might be more your cup o' tea. But so far, nothing has been forthcoming. :smile: