Since you agree concepts do not exist independent of the minds contemplating them, I now know we agree on something important to both of us. — ucarr

When I first posted on this thread, I assumed that we had something in common, besides accepting the dependence of mental functions on material mechanisms. Perhaps, a philosophical role for Deacon's immaterial/potential "Absence" to soften the Hard Problems of physical Science. So, I interpreted "Absential Materialism" as an attempt to reconcile the obsolete Certain physics of Newton with the Uncertain modern physics of Heisenberg. But, your criticisms seem to be defending that 300 year old mechanical/scientific paradigm against the philosophical implications of the 21st century model of random/statistical physics, where particles are only potential*1 (absent) until "observed", and the quantum state is non-local.

Materialism is the easiest metaphysical position to defend. Johnson physically responded to Berkeley's immaterialism : “I refute it thus”, and kicked a stone*2a. On the other hand, Idealism can only be defended with metaphors and rational arguments, but no appeals to the authority of empirical Science. That's because Ideas (per se) are materially Absent, and cannot be explained by any traditional physical mechanism. Emergent functions from material processes cannot be observed empirically, but must be inferred theoretically.

So, I assumed that the OP was postulating some emergent input/output relationship between Matter (etym. “mother”) and Absence (nothingness). Or perhaps, by presenting some novel philosophical insight into the relationship between Philosophy (ideas) and Science (objects). But so far the coinage seems to be simply an apparent paradox, of interest only to fans of Deacon's radical notion of Causal Absence as an explanation for "how mind emerged from matter".

For the record, my interpretation of the "power of Absence" does not imply the "non-existence of matter"*2b, but merely the potential to cause Life & Mind to emerge, via evolutionary processes, from dead mindless matter. Since Newtonian physics can't explain how mind emerged from matter, why not view Deacon's "Absence" as a clue to such mysterious instances of Emergentism*3, that Johnson found "absurd"*2c. Functionalism*4 is a philosophical inference, not a scientific observation. :smile:


*1. Quantum potential :
quantum potential is an energy term that is required for local energy–momentum conservation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential

*2. I refute it thus! :
a> The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.

b> After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

c> Johnson's intent, apparently, was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
Note --- Berkeley's Immaterialism was similar to Kant's ding an sich, and did not mean that you could kick a rock without physical consequences.

*3. Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

*4. Functionalism :
Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
Note --- "internal constitution" = matter. "System" = Holism, another term used by Deacon, that is relevant to Absence and Potential.

Since you agree concepts do not exist independent of the minds contemplating them, I now know we agree on something important to both of us. My use of “exist” simply means “dwell in a real state of being” public, measurable and repeatable. — ucarr

By your empirical definition of "exist", Abstract concepts do not exist. That's because they are in an ideal state : private, knowable, and fleeting. So, they do not come under the purview of empirical Science. Yet, in a different meaning of "exist", abstractions (metaphors) are the substance of Philosophy. :smile:

then I ask you to name the extra-mental, supposed loci for your concepts. — ucarr

Everything we say about ideas is metaphorical. That's because abstractions are bereft of material substance, leaving only the logical skeleton of an idea. So, we manipulate such non-things rationally, not empirically. If you can't accept that distinction, you shouldn't attempt to do philosophy, and stick to physics.

Here's a metaphorical account of "out there", with Big Bang physics as an exemplar : In the 20th century, using astronomical data gained from observation of stars (matter/energy) --- currently billions of light years in the past --- cosmologists traced their formation back to a hypothetical origin point. That point of no-yesterday faded away into abstract mathematical infinities. But the logical implication of a Before-the-Bang was so compelling that some cosmologists couldn't resist asking non-empirical philosophical questions about what was "out there" in the Big Before. Yet, the absence of empirical space-time coordinates eliminates a particular locus as the "where" of the symbolic Place-for-Ideas.

Lacking empirical evidence, there were only two logical answers to the Big Absence : a> infinite regress of familiar stuff (multiverse)*1 or b> some unknown self-existent creative power (EnFormAction?)*2. But their cosmological models indicated that the physics of the Bang was unlike anything we know today, but can only imagine : not lumps of matter, but a plasma field of imaginary (non empirical) sub-atomic elements (quarks & gluons). So, these questions remain : a> where did those invisible entities come from, or b> do they "exist" eternally? And the scientific response is that we don't know. But that absence of facts doesn't stop us philosophers from seeking an honest answer, like homeless-hobo Diogenes and his lamp of logic. :nerd:


*1. Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory :
the Multiverse is in no way falsifiable, and the arguments in its support are nearly identical to the arguments for God.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-religion/

*2. Enformationism :
As a novel philosophical paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The above quotes show the extreme difference between your work and Newton’s. Newton’s mathematical abstractions notwithstanding, his corpus of work in physics has many useful applications to the everyday world of life in general. — ucarr

Yes, but my eccentric worldview accepts Newton's physics as applicable to the tangible stuff of the macro world. However, quantum physics undermined the determinism of his logic,and the certainty of his mathematics on the fuzzy foundations of reality. Both theories may be true in their respective realms, but there is an "extreme difference" in their philosophical interpretation. While quantum theory is "useful" for cell phones & computers*3, it is also applicable to 21st century philosophy*4. :wink:

*3. Quantum Usefulness :
Applications of quantum mechanics include explaining phenomena found in nature as well as developing technologies that rely upon quantum effects, like integrated circuits and lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics

*4. Quantum Philosophy :
One of the world’s leading quantum physicists, Omnès reviews the history and recent development of mathematics, logic, and the physical sciences to show that current work in quantum theory offers new answers to questions that have puzzled philosophers for centuries: Is the world ultimately intelligible? Are all events caused? Do objects have definitive locations?
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691095516/quantum-philosophy

You continue to blockade and avoid the hard work of rigorous scientific scholarship and practice by artificially partitioning philosophy from the sciences. Legitimate philosophy doesn’t hold itself aloof from science. — ucarr

Why do you hold me accountable for the "hard work" of scientific scholarship? I'm not a science scholar, so why should I do that kind of "hard work"? You may be doing Science on a philosophy forum, but I'm not. Responding to your critical reviews is hard enough for me. I do however link to science sites for those who want to see the results of the professionals' hard work. And to see that some science scholars, such as Deacon, are not "hard" Newtonian materialists. Scientific paradigms come & go. Which paradigm do you subscribe to?*5

2500 years ago, there was no distinction between Physics and Metaphysics. But around the 17th century Science began to separate itself from its non-empirical roots. So, I would turn your accusation around, to say that modern Science, with its technical tools, "holds itself aloof" from Philosophy. Meanwhile, philosophers plod along with their ancient tools of Logic & Reason. But, I don't claim to be a physicist ; do you claim to be a philosopher? Which is superior to the other, and in what field of comparison? Please don't hold me accountable for outdated Classical physics. But you can expect me to take modern Quantum physics seriously. :cool:

*5. Scientific Paradigms :
A paradigm shift—or paradigm change—happens when scientific activity and experimentation begins to contradict premises that experts previously considered unshakable. As a result, a new and different paradigm replaces the dominant paradigm of its day.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/paradigm-shift-explained

↪Gnomon
But with deference to Deacon, he is certainly no lumpen materialist. He holds up Francis Crick’s neural materialism as an example of same. I am suspicious of the claim of the necessity of a ‘neural substrate’, that an idea is only real if it is instantiated in a physical brain, but I’m still considering Deacon’s book. — Wayfarer

Good! Deacon is one a handful of practicing scientists who are not afraid to think outside the Reductionist box about Holistic concepts. Although he skirts the taboo line between empirical Science and theoretical Philosophy, he provides tasty fodder for philosophical rumination. For empirical purposes, Absence is non-nutritious. But for theoretical models, it is filling. :smile:

This claim begs the question: Do abstract concepts exist independent of minds contemplating them? — ucarr

No. Why do you ask? Are you trying to determine if I am a Platonic Idealist, like Kastrup? He makes some good arguments for Idealism as prior to Real, but I'm not so sure. The term "to exist" has multiple meanings.

's answer to the same question indicates the ambiguity of the Either/Or distinction between Real & Ideal. The only thing we know for sure is our own ideas (solipsism paradox). But we can infer, and collectively agree as a convention, that there is a reality out there conforming to our individual imaginary concepts. Ironically, Materialist/Physicalist thinkers seem to reverse that certainty. They take the conventional position as a hard fact. But my inclusive philosophical position is not Either/Or but BothAnd. So, it serves my purposes, for philosophical argument, to assume as an axiom that perfect Ideality is the standard against which Reality is measured. :grin:

BothAnd philosophy :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Do you make your claim of causation being primarily philosophical in application to: a) chemistry; b) elementary particle physics? — ucarr

No. My concept of Causation applies only to Philosophy. I don't do Chemistry or Physics. However, I do gain some philosophical insights from scientific enigmas, such as quantum paradoxes (wave/particle ; energy/mass). :nerd:

I understand this sentence as a reference to Wheeler’s “It from bit.” Do you think information: a) an agent of material things; b) a material aspect of material things? — ucarr

Your questions indicate that you still don't understand what Enformationism is all about. It's a philosophical model of reality, not a scientific description of materiality. As an alternative to Materialism and Idealism, it postulates that Generic Information (First Cause) is all-of-the above : agency, matter, etc. During physical evolution, from plasma to people, the Universal Power (potential) remains the same, and only the specific Form (actual instances) changes as the world evolves. Wheeler didn't use the term "generic information", but his "bit" refers to something general instead of specific. It's not a thing, but a principle. For example, Newton's Principia Mathematica refers to ideal abstractions, not to agents or material things. Of course, he believed in an absolute Agent who knows (imagines) such ideas into reality.

However, my Enformationism uses the term "Information" in a dual sense : both mathematical computer data and personal mental meaning. And, for my own philosophical conjectures, I imagine the universe as a mathematical Program --- a la Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis --- running on a material computer with physical registers. So the hypothetical First Cause (original agent) is metaphorically designated as the Cosmic Programmer. Remember that scientists often use figurative language to indicate complex abstract systems that are otherwise hard to describe. For example, Darwin's metaphorical "tree of life". and later biologist's analogy of chemical DNA to an informative algorithmic "code". :smile:

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

The next question I would ask, in what sense do such principles exist? Is the Pythagorean Theorem 'out there somewhere' - a popular expression for whatever is thought to be real. To which I'd respond in the negative - such principles are not situated in space and time, neither are arithmetical primitives or the other fundamental constituents of rational thought. But due to the influence of empiricism on philosophy, the nature of such principles must be relegated to the subjective or attributed to what you describe as 'brain phenomena'. But notice that 'phenomena' means 'what appears' but that whatever we ascribe to the neural domain can only be a matter of inference; nothing actually appears in a brain as object of neuroscientific analysis, save patterns of bio-electrical activity. But it seems to me that in support of your materialist thesis, you must insist on the connection between abstract principles and neural configuration, to maintain the connection with a material substrate, as an 'output' or 'result' of 'neural activities'. — Wayfarer

That's an excellent example of the difference in how the Materialist and Metaphysical worldviews imagine Ontological Existence. Ironically, imagination of abstractions, such as Principles, is not explainable in physical/material terms, except as philosophical metaphors. How anything immaterial or inferred or imaginary can "appear" in a gelatinous lump of matter is the essence of the "hard problem".

But Materialists seem to take that "magical" manifestation for granted, because it's so "natural" to the human mind. Yet they attribute that mysterious ability, to see the invisible, to a "neural correlate" of a metaphorical homunculus in the material brain. Many, if not most, philosophical Principles (noumena) are describable only by analogies to physical phenomena.

One of those imaginary notions is Absence, imagined -- like Zero -- as-if a physical place-holder for something real, but not yet manifest. That's what we call statistical "Potential" : what could be, but is not yet. It's like a prayer : Lord, please fill-in the blank with something tangible. :pray:

Can you elaborate further your insightful characterization of energy as causation? — ucarr

I didn't think of "energy as causation" as insightful. I thought it was obvious. Perhaps the dictionary definition of energy as "ability" is vague. But even the notion of "force" as a mathematical "vector quantity" is less than clear. But then, the notion of "Causality" or "Causation" is more of a general philosophical concept than a specific physical phenomenon, in that it implies both Agency (executive) and Efficacy (ability). Actually, I consider the equation of "Information" (power to inform) and "Causation" (energy) to be more philosophically insightful. That notion probably goes back to Quantum theory, but Deacon discussed not only the causal role of Absence, but notes that its not-yet-real Potential was mostly overlooked in physical Science. :smile:

Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move.
https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/education/tell-me-about/physics-of-energy

Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses. As such a basic concept, it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Causation is the transfer of information
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9229-1_18

The Logical Dynamics of Information :
In his Incomplete Nature, Deacon extends a thermodynamic concept of energy to yield a description of complex processes in which absence plays a critical role in their emergence and evolution. Starting from a quantum-mechanical picture of energy as an energy-matter duality, the critical role of potential as well as actual properties of processes is also described in the new extension of logic to real phenomena, Logic in Reality (LIR) . . . . Their conjunction constitutes a new conceptual structure for exploring the relationship of information to materiality, that is, to the matter-energy that constitutes it as its carrier and/or substrate.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/4/676

What can you tell us about the QM version of causation? — ucarr

The main contribution of Quantum Mechanics to Causation theory was its statistical nature. By that I mean quantum events are not absolute Cause >>> Effect, but mathematically subject to random interaction, hence probable. The chain of Cause & Effect has gaps or weak links or non-linear links. Philosophically, I attribute that non-linear behavior --- as defined in the Schrodinger equation --- to the Holistic effects of Entanglement. Randomness and non-linearity are the primary differences between Classical Newtonian physics and Non-classical Quantum physics. Like immaterial Absence, this random causal Probability has not been duly appreciated in pragmatic Physics. :nerd:

PS___ I'll leave it to you to elaborate on your notion of Blockchains and Economics.

Does Deacon teach us that metaphysical principles are logically but not temporally prior to the natural world? Should we understand that spirit and nature are co-eternal? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any specific discussion of "Metaphysics" in Incomplete Nature ; that word is not in the index. Also, the unscientific word "spirit" is not in the index. Besides, Deacon --- as a scientist --- seems to deliberately avoid making specific philosophical conjectures, such as you mentioned, beyond a space-time context. But other people have referred to the book as a "metaphysics of incompleteness".

Regarding temporal priority, he typically restricts his remarks to spatio-temporal settings. Therefore, I suppose you will have to make your own conjectures about the "co-eternal" interrelationship between "spirit" (immaterial potential?) and "nature (material actuality). What do you think? Is Potential temporally prior to Actual, or is Potential timeless and Actual time-bound? Is "spirit" an eternal changeless principle, and "nature" a temporal ever-changing system of matter & energy? On the other hand, his use of "teleology" is indeed a philosophical concept, that goes beyond the space-time constraints of Science. :smile:

Under Deacon’s influence I’ve learned to speculate temporal direction in application to the mind/body problem might be significant rather than trivial. You talk of metaphysical principles being causal. Might it be more correct to say metaphysical principles describe causation? — ucarr

Of course Time is an important factor for perishable material bodies, and minds are dependent on bodies. So yes, Time is significant for making sense of the Mind/Body problem. However, philosophical principles are imaginary concepts, and not subject to the ravages of Time. I suppose the "metaphysical principle" you referred to is Energy, as if it was a philosophical concept. But I would say that Energy is instead a practical physical concept, while EnFormAction is a theoretical philosophical conjecture. Yet both are referring to the invisible Cause behind the obvious Effects (changes) we see in nature. The names don't "describe" causation, but merely label a phenomenon that humans infer intuitively : that physical Change is somewhat mysterious. Which is why the ancients labelled "spiritual" phenomena in terms of causal agents, rather than natural forces. :cool:

When an elementary particle decays into two of its constituent particles, physicists don’t typically characterize this event as being metaphysics in action. — ucarr

Naturally! Physicists typically avoid any implication of Metaphysics in their descriptions of change. However, what you call "metaphysics in action" might be considered legitimate philosophical language. Since this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Forum, the terminology would be expected to be different, and more focused on Ideas than Things. Deacon used the term "Absence" in lieu of more traditional philosophical appellations for immaterial (mental ; mathematical) notions. Scientists might prefer "statistical probability" to "absence" as the precursor of Actuality.

In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I said "Deacon missed the opportunity to summarize his "absence" and "aboutness" as metaphysical aspects of "Entention and Sentience". I suppose the absence of that philosophical term in a scientific work was intentional. :grin:

That self-organizing processes working through nested tiers of upwardly evolving dynamics lead a trail of interconnection from it to bit seems to me, per the brilliant analysis of Deacon, foundational truth. — ucarr

Yes, it was that "upward evolution" that Deacon labeled "Teleology", in contravention of scientific protocol that evolution is directionless. But the increase in complexity & integration & interconnection of systems over time is undeniable. So, he also described Evolution as "downward causation", as-if the program of physical form-change was directed from above. That teleological direction was also implicit in Wheeler's "it from bit" notion, where mental Information was prior to physical instances. Is such Teleology also a "foundational truth"? :wink:

The metaphysical description of physical processes has no causal force whatsoever. . . . Metaphysical understandings of physical truths are logically prior to physical processes as interpretive overviews of types of physical processes and their interrelations. — ucarr

Physical Truths are what philosophers refer to as Metaphysical Principles. Which are, by definition, logically prior to physical things and processes. So, the "causal force" of a Principle is in the before & after or if-then relationship. Traditionally, philosophers referred to Downward Causation as purposeful Teleology. But modern materialistic philosophers prefer to use the non-commital term Teleonomy. Personally, I find Teleology more descriptive, despite its implication of a Cosmic Mind as the First Cause. :nerd:

Radar is not a pulsating machine gun shooting bullets (matter) & spaces (absence) at a target. Or is it? — Gnomon
Are photons a new concept for you? — wonderer1

A wavy photon zooming through the Aether has the potential for mass, and can transform into mass, but while traveling at lightspeed (zero mass), is not massive like a bullet. Ironically, Some physicists and physicalists like to imagine it metaphorically as a little ball of matter. Radar photons are a focused field of statistical possibility. Like all sub-atomic "particles" a photon is non-local, until it interacts with matter, in which case the probability wave "collapses" into a point. At which point it is no longer a photon. :smile:

Is the photon really a particle? :
Abraham Pais [14, p. 350−1] writes that although the photon has zero mass, physicists “… nevertheless call a photon a particle because, just like massive particles, it obeys the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in collisions, with an electron say (Compton effect).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402621003983

Secondly, the photon is now thought of as a particle, a wave, and an excitation—kind of like a wave—in a quantum field.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-photon?language_content_entity=und

I'm not an Immaterialist or Idealist --- in the sense of denying material reality. — Gnomon
You know I know this. You’ve told me repeatedly that you’re invested in the material, the physical, the in-between and the meta-physical. Am I mistaken in believing you think metaphysical principles immaterial yet causal, as in the case to “it from bit?” If I’m not mistaken about this, then you need to show how metaphysical principles “enform” matter with attributes only known in the abstract a priori.

It won’t due talking about potential energy as causal potential somehow manipulating matter. Such a description is too vague to be of use to anyone but you in salesman mode promoting your Enformaction Theory. — ucarr

Apparently you "know" what I say, but not what I mean. Our communication problem may be that you are thinking like a Scientist, while I am trying to think like a Philosopher. Consequently, when I talk about a metaphysical Causal Principle (e.g. Energy) producing changes in Matter, I place it in a philosophical category more like metaphysical Essence (identity ; meaning). That's because Potential/Energy/Essence has no material properties : mass, hardness, plasticity. Energy's primary property is Causation. So, I'm making a philosophical distinction, not a scientific classification.

Yet, you seem to lump Energy into the more general category of Physical or Natural, and interpret my meta-physical notion of Energy as Spiritual or Supernatural. From that perspective, all philosophical language would be indistinguishable from Religion. And that's how Materialists (realists ; physicalists) seem to pigeonhole theoretical Philosophy (theorist ; idealist) as in opposition to pragmatic Science. Personally, I view them as complementary, providing a more complete worldview than either alone.

While you have acknowledged that Deacon's Incomplete Nature*1 attempts to bridge that gap between Science (pragmatism & materialism) and Philosophy (theoretical & idealistic), you seem to lean toward the scientific side. Hence, if you want to pin the negative "immaterialist" label on me, what does that make you, in an either/or sense?*2. Whereas philosophically, I am a substance Dualist and Information Monist*3 : {everything is a form of causal information}, you appear to be a Matter Monist : {everything is a material thing}. We just reverse the priority of active Sculptor & passive Clay*4, as in the "it from bit" metaphor.

I could "show" how the "metaphysical principle", Energy, enforms (changes properties) of Matter with a demonstration of the photochemical reaction. But that's not what I'm talking about. As a meta-physical philosophical principle, Energy is simply the causal power to transform one conceptual Kind into another category. Causation is a philosophical concept, not a thing with material properties. Hence, it is not knowable via the physical senses, but only by means of mental reasoning.

Therefore, I could parse your term "Absential Materialism" as a mashup of different aspects of reality : metaphysical ideas and material things. Yet, Absence is not a real thing, it's the conceptual negation of material Presence : nothing, nada, emptiness. "Absence" per Deacon is a a state of things not yet realized", hence Potential, not Actual. Ironically, a Materialist/Physicalist/Naturalist thinks of a chemical battery as an example of philosophical Potential. It's that type of reification of ideas that we are dealing with here. What I'm "selling" is affirmation of the power of Absence. :smile:

*1. Terrence Deacon :
Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*2. Materialism vs Metaphysics :
Basically they reject each other. Materialism states that ALL is simply matter, even thoughts. If everything is matter (and obviously energy), everything in the end falls under Physics, so there is nothing that is “beyond” (meta) Physics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-materialism-and-metaphysics

*3. Informational Monism :
Although a substantial number of papers is published on the topic of consciousness, there
is still little consensus on what its nature is and how the physical and phenomenal worlds
are connected
https://philarchive.org/archive/EVOIMA-2

*4. Naturalism vs Philosophy :
A central thought in ontological naturalism is that all spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. Many ontological naturalists thus adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological, social and other such “special” subject matters.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Note --- Matter is spatio-temporal, but Mind is non-local & noumenal*5.

*5. Meta-Physics : philosophy, not-theology
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material. — ucarr

First of all, I'm not an Immaterialist or Idealist --- in the sense of denying material reality. Second, you conflate Material with Physical, whereas I think of them as separate aspects of Reality*1. For me, Material (chemistry) is concerned with the stuff we see & touch. But Physics (energy ; force) focuses on how stuff changes : growing, developing, becoming*2. That is an important philosophical distinction.

Regarding "causal contact" between physical stuff and metaphysical power : a> It's the "action at a distance" that puzzled Newton about his theory of Gravity ; b> it's what Einstein disparagingly dismissed as "spooky action at a distance" in quantum physics. In what sense is a Force material? My answer is Aristotle's definition of "substance", not as Material but as Essential ; not as Physical but as Meta-physical ; not as Stuff, but as Power/Potential.

Are those absences made of material stuff? If so, what kind of matter is the Gap made of? Is the hole in a wagon wheel made of some invisible/intangible material? Do you think Energy/Force is a material object? Or could they be better described as causal Potentials? Note --- Star Trek writers invented the notion of a Tractor Beam to pull objects toward the Enterprise, like a grappling hook, except without ropes & hooks. Is that beam Physics or Fiction? :smile:


*1. Difference Between Physics vs Chemistry :
Both fields deal with matter, though physics focuses on how matter moves and interacts, while chemistry examines the composition of matter at the atomic level.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/physics-vs-chemistry-overview-difference-examples.html

*2. Physics is about Change :
The Greek word physis can be considered the equivalent of the Latin natura. The abstract term physis is derived from the verb phyesthai/phynai, which means “to grow”, “to develop”, “to become”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis

So, surprisingly, this view of self shows it to be as non-material as Descartes might have imagined, and yet as physical, extended, and relevant to the causal scheme of things as is the hole at the hub of a wheel. — ucarr

Makes sense to me. But, like a Phase Transition, the intermediate physical stages between material and non-material are not apparent to me. Sounds like Magic : presto change-o! Except of course, if "Absence" is defined as a metaphysical Potentiality Principle (Form) --- inherent in all physical things --- as proposed by Aristotle to explain why things are what they are, and behave as they do. :smile:

The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms. — ucarr

Yes. Physical Self-reference (structural or logical loops or "tangled hierarchy") does seem to be a necessary precursor to Self-Consciousness. But is it sufficient? Perhaps, it's a Strange Loop*1 as postulated in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach : "I am a strange loop". "And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop". :nerd:

*1. Strange loop :
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Note --- The "strangeness" of a strange loop comes from our way of perceiving ; as in quantum physics.
.
PS___ I just noticed that Roger Penrose's Orch Or hypothesis, has a role for gravitational attraction*2 (spooky action at a distance). The technical stuff is way over my head. And microtubules may be merely a metaphor for resonance chambers causing oscillation. But, does his notion fit into your Absential Materialism? The strangeness & spookiness qualities seem to be inherent in the quantum foundation of reality.

*2. Can Roger Penrose Explain Consciousness Through Physics? :
Penrose’s theory proposes that each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness : micro-events that get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness. A conscious observer doesn’t cause wave function collapse. A conscious observer is caused by wave function collapse
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/10/can-roger-penrose-explain-consciousness-through-physics/
Note --- Proto-consciousness is what I call EnFormAction : the causal form of Information. EFA is not a Thing, but the potential to cause change in things. Perhaps spooky Gravity is a form of meta-physical EFA.

Describe how immaterial energy connects with the material things it changes. For example, explain how, when lightning strikes a person and kills them, the lightning transforms into a material thing. — ucarr

Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. For scientists, such transformations are described in terms of Phase Transition, where the intervening steps (mechanisms) are unknown. On the quantum scale, there is a transformation that is ironically labeled : Magic*2. :nerd:


*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/energy-transfers-and-transformations/

*2. Phase transition in Magic :
Magic is a property of quantum states that enables universal fault-tolerant quantum computing using simple sets of gate operations. Understanding the mechanisms by which magic is created or destroyed is, therefore, a crucial step towards efficient and practical fault-tolerant computation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10481



PS___ I just found a graphic illustration of intersecting & interacting gravitational fields. It's a model of the far future collision of Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Both parts are gravitationally transformed after passing through each other. But due to the vast empty space (absence) between lumps of matter (e.g. stars & planets) there is very little material contact. How does this physical model compare to your philosophical notion of Absential Materialism?

I've been long interested in the "existence precedes essence" debate. I find defining essence the key to the debate. — Rob J Kennedy

I never understood what Sartre meant by that cryptic phrase. But, since you asked, I started looking into it. Apparently, he was not talking about biological or genetic determinism, but simply about metaphysical FreeWill and Self-determination. His humanist Existentialism was contrasted to religious Determinism or Destiny (remote control), and restrictive Morality. So, I assume he equated "existence" with unique Personhood, and "essence" with the concept of a fatalistic Calvinist Predestined Soul. This is completely different from Aristotle's meaning of Essence or Psyche or Soul.

Presumably, the Soul that inhabits a Body works like a computer program in a robot. The mechanical Body limits what you can do, but the volitional Soul/Mind determines your Choices. For Calvinists, we humans are like remote-controlled robots, with no internal executive power over our eternal destiny. Yet, for Existentialists, the human Self/Mind/Person can learn to transcend or reprogram its biological (essential) settings. That's just my top-of-the-head guess, though. What's yours? :smile:

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does". ___Jean-Paul Sartre
Note --- Don't blame God or Satan for what you Are and Do

Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism, is the belief that human behaviour is directly controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Existence precedes essence :
To Sartre, "existence precedes essence" means that a personality is not built from a previously designed model or for a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

What is the existentialist view of free will? :
In this way, the existentialist generally affirms the view that the human being has free will, is able to make decisions, and can be held responsible for their actions. But, as we will see, this does not mean that we can do whatever we want.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Freedom and Responsibility :
Our choices are free in the sense that (1) no outside factors determine our will, (2) in any particular case we could have acted otherwise than we did, and (3) we are therefore responsible for our choices in a way that justifies moral praise and blame.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/existentialism/v-1/sections/freedom-and-responsibility#:~:text=Our%20choices%20are%20free%20in,blame%20(see%20Free%20will).

PS___ It just occurred to me that Buddhist Self-Control may be similar to Sartre's Personal Development, allowing a Self to learn to overcome inherent limitations & instincts.

I find defining essence the key to the debate. — Rob J Kennedy

Welcome Rob. I first want to distinguish you from the politician currently running for American president : Robert Kennedy Jr. One of your accidental qualities is Australian. But that accident of birth may not be essential to your being as a person in the wider world. Therefore, we need to first define the context for our definition.

Generally, "Essence" is a Quality that humans attribute to things in order to define them, and to distinguish them from other things : its core identity. Aristotle looked for a universal definition of Thingness. So he developed his notion of "Hylomorphism", in which Hyle is matter and Morph is Form. Yet his "morph" does not refer to what we see, but to what we infer by reason. Another term is "Substance" (ousia, being), but today Materialists often confuse it with objective malleable material stuff (hyle), although he identified it with subjective immaterial immutable "Form" (pattern ; design).

I won't even attempt to define Human Essence in this post, because it's a hotly debated question. The term could merely distinguish humans from animals : traditionally a Soul. Or it could more generally define humanity Ontologically. I do have some unconventional ideas on the topic, that go back to Aristotle's ancient concept of Form, along with our modern understanding of Information. But, I'll give you a chance to say how deep and how far you want to go with this topic. :smile:


Essence is a polysemic term, having various meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. ___Wikipedia

Substance vs Essence vs Form :
Metaphysics can be concerned with things so basic that it’s hard to understand, and the language only makes it harder. The hope here is to provide a quick guide to help with key terms: “essence,” “substance,” and “form.”
https://o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/essence-substance-and-form-81c2b707c0d8

Essence as Form :
Another article in the Philosophy Now magazine attempts to find “a balance between two extreme views of consciousness. . . . Physicalism and panpsychism sit either end of a metaphysical seesaw, and when one is in the ascendancy it is only by bringing the other unduly low.” The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html

Looks like a real thing to me, and it is a wave. — Lionino

A representation of an energetic wave and the wave itself are different things : one a natural function and the other an artificial mental model of that function. Do you "see" the difference between the Map and Terrain? :smile:

Mental Map vs Physical Territory :
“The map is not the territory” is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

PS___ Your characterization of ↪Wayfarer & Gnomon as "immaterialists" may provide a clue as to where your strategy is coming from. — Gnomon
Are you suggesting my language characterizing you and Wayfarer is actually a more apt description of me? — ucarr

No. I was suggesting that you were portraying us --- "immaterialists" --- as opposed to your own position : "materialist". Is that an incorrect guess?

FWIW, my philosophical worldview is neither Materialism nor Immaterialism, Realism nor Idealism, but a philosophical Monistic marriage of both ontologies. My Holistic BothAnd worldview includes both visible Matter and invisible Energy, both tangible Brain and intangible Mind. That's not a denial of Reality, but an acceptance of Ideality within Reality. How would you describe your worldview? :smile:


BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information ; both Feelings and Facts ; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact ; both Animal and Human nature ; both Real things and Ideal concepts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Energy is [ ... ] immaterial in its thingness.
— Gnomon
So (rest) mass is "immaterial" too?
— 180 Proof
Yes. Mass is not an objective thing... — Gnomon
:clap: :lol: :sad: :rofl: — 180 Proof

Please look in the mirror. Can't you see that "Boo!" and "Boo-Hoo!" are childish emotional reactions to something personally unpleasant. Not a philosophical argument for a stated position.

if you can calm down long enough to think rationally, here are some formal positions that you can argue against, to support your materialistic belief system. Can you understand that Energy is a metaphysical philosophical Principle, not a material object? :cool:


Is energy a metaphysical concept?
Because it is ubiquitous, the concept of energy must be philosophical and, in particular, metaphysical (or ontological). That is, it belongs in the same league as the concepts of thing and property, event and process, space and time, causation and chance, law and trend, and many others.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4408-0_14

Rest Mass Energy :
One of the terms in the relativistic kinetic energy equation is the rest-mass of the particle and its given by E=mc^2. The rest-mass energy is the energy that is stored inside a stationary particle as a result of its mass. Rest-mass energy implies that mass is simply another form of energy.
https://aklectures.com/lecture/relativistic-momentum-and-rest-mass-energy/rest-mass-energy

Invisible Energy :
What is always present but never visible? Energy. Energy is a difficult
concept to understand because it is not a concrete object that you can
see or touch. To comprehend what energy is, you need to understand
what it does. That is, although energy isn’t visible, you can detect evidence
of energy. . . . . Movement, sound, heat, and light provide evidence that energy is
present and being used.
https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/EvidenceofEnergy.pdf

PS___In this exchange, seems to define "immaterial" as unreal or spiritual, or imaginary or irrelevant. A secondary dictionary definition is "spiritual, rather than physical". Personally, I don't think in terms of "spiritual". So, for me "immaterial" means literally "not made of matter".

And that "immaterial" label includes invisible metaphysical Energy, as noted in the links above. Causal Energy is Real, in the sense that its actions have sensable and measurable effects on matter. But Energy is also a subjective Metaphysical process in that it is a definition, not an objective thing. Likewise, Space, Time, and Causation are philosophical ideas, not real things. None of those concepts can be observed with eyes or scopes, but only through reasoning from observations. Perhaps 180 would say that Reasons are Real. And I would agree that those mental functions are indeed included as immaterial Ideas in my Real world.

I know that an abstract principle may have truth content and some level of application to the phenomenal world. How may it have realizable potential? Does such realizable potential evolve over an interval of time of positive value? If so, how is this time interval pertaining to an abstract principle measured? — ucarr

Energy is an "abstract principle" that has effects in the phenomenal world. We refer to that effect as Change. And all material transformations take time. That's why we call change-in-general : Time. So the time-interval (experience A relative to experience B) is one way to measure Change & Causation.

But the Energy itself is a Potential principle (the power to change form), not an Actual physical phenomenon. Our physical senses cannot detect Energy directly, only its effects on tangible Matter. That observation of Change is what we call "Realization" : from possible to actual (unreal to real) states of being. :smile:


Invisible Energy :
What is always present but never visible? Energy. Energy is a difficult
concept to understand because it is not a concrete object that you can
see or touch. To comprehend what energy is, you need to understand
what it does. That is, although energy isn’t visible, you can detect evidence
of energy. . . . . Movement, sound, heat, and light provide evidence that energy is
present and being used.
https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/EvidenceofEnergy.pdf

Picture the moon in earth’s skyline, with the ocean at high tide. This is an interaction of two celestial bodies with gravitational fields: earth holds the moon in its orbit and the moon raises the ocean tides. — ucarr

OK. I'm imagining those interacting gravitational fields. Now, what does that mutual attraction have to do with Absential Materialism? Deacon says that "what is absent matters"; but that means it's meaningful to an observer. Is Meaning the kind of Matter your term refers to? :smile:

Energy is [ ... ] immaterial in its thingness. — Gnomon
So (rest) mass is "immaterial" too? — 180 Proof

Yes. Mass is not an objective thing, it's a measure of Matter. And measurement is a mental function. In my personal philosophical thesis, Mind (e.g. Intention) is also a form of shape-shifting Energy. And physical energy is just one of many forms of Generic Information (power to change form). Matter is a tangible form of that universal Causal Potential. Causation is the process of form change, again not a material thing. :smile:

Rest Mass Energy :
One of the terms in the relativistic kinetic energy equation is the rest-mass of the particle and its given by E=mc^2. The rest-mass energy is the energy that is stored inside a stationary particle as a result of its mass. Rest-mass energy implies that mass is simply another form of energy.
https://aklectures.com/lecture/relativistic-momentum-and-rest-mass-energy/rest-mass-energy

Mind as Energy :
The mind is viewed as energies of relationships, with no beginning and no end, that give rise to consciousness in an observer processing change or information from the universe.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/mind-as-energy/

Consciousness as Energy :
Recent neuroscientific evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of the way energetic activity is organized in the brain.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full

Pulsating electromagnetic energy? I consider this a real "thing", but the aether probably is not. — jgill

Energy is real in its observed effects, but immaterial in its thingness. :nerd:

Is energy real or a concept?
The reason it is so hard to define is because it's an abstract notion. In physics, the concept of “energy” is really just a kind of shorthand, a tool to help balance the books. It is always conserved (or converted into mass) so is incredibly useful in working out the results of any kind of physical or chemical process
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/

so do you know where I could find such an illustration of material absence? I'm serious. — Gnomon
How about radar. — jgill

OK. How does Radar --- a focused energy field --- illustrate how Absential Materialism works? Radar is not a pulsating machine gun shooting bullets (matter) & spaces (absence) at a target. Or is it? :wink:

PS___As a radarman, I once saw a high-powered radar antenna cook a seagull perched nearby. Definitely real effects! But the "bullets" (pulses or bad vibes) could pass right through or bounce off most matter, and worked best on transparent water; as in a microwave.

I think Deacon is one of those developing an extended form of naturalism — Wayfarer

Yes. But, ironically, Ursula Goodenough and Terrence Deacon, in The Sacred Emergence of Nature --- referred to the topic as "religious naturalism".
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=bio_facpubs

In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I summarized the book as "a naturalized account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, & Consciousness". But, as a practicing scientist, he seems to carefully avoid crossing the taboo line between Physics vs Metaphysics, Realism vs Idealism, and Science vs Philosophy. So, I also noted, "In order to establish the plausibility of absence-based (Metaphysical) causation, Deacon has to weed out unwarranted assumptions of Physicalism and Materialism". This straddling strategy and ontological balancing act led me to add : "The deistic inferences I'm drawing from Deacon's evidence & reasoning are precisely the one's he's trying to avoid".

I give him some slack though, because Deacon is a scientist whose specialties --- Anthropology, Biosemiotics & Neuroscience --- straddle the dividing line between Science & Philosophy and Classical & Quantum worldviews. My own Enformationism worldview also tiptoes along the same borderline. But, I assume that intends to remain firmly on the side of "secular naturalism". Which is fine with me. But, I view the Presence vs Absence dichotomy as a figure/ground concept like Ideal/Real & Physics/Metaphysics that depend on your personal subjective perspective, not on True/False facts.

An early Wiki review said, "this book speculates on how properties such as information, value, purpose, meaning and end-directed behavior emerged from physics and chemistry". Enformationism could be described the same way. And the associated philosophical attitude of BothAnd --- neither Realism nor Idealism, but Both --- places me on the same moot margin as Deacon. So, his book has added new dimensions to my own understanding of how Physical Reality and Metaphysical Ideality can co-exist in a world of embodied minds, capable of exploring the near infinite universe by means of ententional imagination. :smile:


Incomplete Nature :
The book expands upon the classical conceptions of work and information in order to give an account of ententionality that is consistent with eliminative materialism and yet does not seek to explain away or pass off as epiphenominal the non-physical properties of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Herein, I will attempt to profile Gnomon and Wayfarer philosophically: You’re trying to plot a course midway between reductive materialism at one extreme and brain-in-a-vat Platonism at the other. In so doing, you must affect a dalliance with materialist science without becoming infected by it. You’re both involved in the game of double-agentry. I’m surmising dancing with science-nuanced-cum-philosophy presents as one of the major strategies of today’s savvy immaterialists. — ucarr

Actually, on this thread, "double-agent" Gnomon is trying to understand your "course" right through the middle of Materialism and Absentialism simultaneously. Your arcane language is over my head, so I was hoping you could provide a graphic representation of your overlapping field concept : a picture is worth a thousand words ___Henrik Ibsen :smile:

PS___ Your characterization of & Gnomon as "immaterialists" may provide a clue as to where your strategy is coming from.

My Absence/Void analogy was referring to Potential for change (probability), not Actual causation (energy). In other words, Aristotelian Potential is unreal & immaterial & meta-physical, and not measurable in terms of thermo-dynamics. Potential is knowable only in hindsight by reasoning, or by mathematical calculation of statistical Probability for a future event. — Gnomon
I think your use of “potential,” a stored-energy, material phenomenon, connects Absence/Void to other material things. Think of a battery. — ucarr

No. I was not talking about storage of invisible energy in tangible chemistry, but about Potential as a Principle, as Aristotle defined it. The Map is not the Terrain ; the Potential is not the Chemical. :smile:


Principle in philosophy and mathematics means a fundamental law or assumption. The word "principle" is derived from Latin "principium" (beginning)
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Principle

The mathematical waveform is not a real thing — Gnomon
There are no material waveforms in Reality — Gnomon
Ocean waves might be considered as waveforms, although they are erratic. Radar, etc. are waveforms in reality. — jgill

Hmmm? An ocean wave is a modulation of water, but what is the real substance of a radar waveform? Radar is a modulation of physical Energy, but it has no "real" substance, except perhaps for ethereal Aether. The waveform is described in terms of time, frequency, space, polarization, and modulation. But all of those are mental concepts, not material objects. Hence, they exist in what I call Ideality. :smile:

Note --- I was a radarman in the Navy, but never saw or touched a waveform, except as a graphic representation in a book. That's because a waveform is a mathematical idealization, not a real thing like "radar love". :joke:

PS___ I asked for a graphic representation of Interacting Gravity Fields to help me understand his analogy to Absential Materialism. He didn't respond, so do you know where I could find such an illustration of material absence? I'm serious.

Radar Love
I've been drivin' all night, my hands wet on the wheel
There's a voice in my head that drives my heel
It's my baby callin', sayin', "I need you here"
And it's a half past four and I'm shiftin' gear…

This is what happens when we approach the issue of "the first cause". The calculus turns the first cause into a limit on tangible causation, rather than treating the first cause as an actual cause. But if there is an actual intangible first cause then the mathematical representation renders that first cause as unintelligible, being outside the limit of causation, according to the conventions for applying the mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Parallel to your argument that the elliptical*1 infinite series .99999. . . . is not equal to 1.0 (but only approximates), the philosophical First Cause is erroneously assumed by some to be necessarily limited to the Set of Real Things. But, if that cause is infinite, it transcends physical causation in the real world. Hence, it can only be approximated with metaphors.

Perhaps, instead, the First Cause "exists" only in the "empty set" mentioned by Banno. From that perspective, Infinity & Zero and the Cause of Reality are members of the Nada Set. In that sense, the Null Set does not contain any Actual or Real values, but only Potential, or Imaginary or Ideal values.

Resistance to seeing the First Cause that way may be due to its implication of Kant's Transcendental Idealism*2, which seems to be something like a heaven for spirit beings. Such concepts are obviously outside the Set of Physics, but are logically included in the philosophical or mathematical Set of All Sets. :smile:


*1. Ellipsis : the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.

*2. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”, and ever since the publication of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, Kant’s readers have wondered, and debated, what exactly transcendental idealism is, and have developed quite different interpretations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
Note --- Transcendental "existence" has no mundane instances. But the human mind is capable of imagining such transcendental non-things as Zero & Infinity & Deity, hence Meta-physical : the core subject of Philosophy, not Physics.

If Absence/Void is active and causal, as in the case of grounding emergent material things, then its energetic_material, not absential. The absential gaps are due to constraints imposed by dynamic metabolics upon the universal, thermo-dynamical tendency towards equilibrium and inaction. — ucarr

My Absence/Void analogy was referring to Potential for change (probability), not Actual causation (energy). In other words, Aristotelian Potential is unreal & immaterial & meta-physical, and not measurable in terms of thermo-dynamics. Potential is knowable only in hindsight by reasoning, or by mathematical calculation of statistical Probability for a future event.

I suppose you could say that "Potential" refers to the Absence part of Absential Materialism. It's the latent Tendency or Propensity, not the manifest Actuality. Potential is another name for my concept of EnFormAction as a precursor of Energy. Potential is Absence that causes Presence. It's not a valid concept in materialistic Physics, but is a useful concept in mathematical Physics. :nerd:

PS___ The potential-to-actual transformation could be construed as "top-down" causation. As Deacon put it : "the downward . . . causation . . . is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities" p161. {my emphasis}

Potential :
Aristotle's concept of potentiality and actuality is a fundamental aspect of his metaphysical philosophy. Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility for something to become actual, while actuality refers to the state of being fully realized or manifested. . . . Actuality is what 'manifests.' Potentiality is what 'could be'.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Aristotles-potentiality-and-actuality

Probability :
The philosophy of probability presents problems chiefly in matters of epistemology and the uneasy interface between mathematical concepts and ordinary language as it is used by non-mathematicians. Probability theory is an established field of study in mathematics. . . . . "physical" and "evidential" probabilities.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations

Absence may play the role of causal Energy… — Gnomon
Energy, even as a waveform, is a presence. — ucarr

In order to "play the role of energy", Absence (void) must transform from Potential (not yet real) into Actual (matter). The mathematical waveform is not a real thing, but a pointer to the potential or possible Presence of a particle (photon). There are no material waveforms in Reality, only conceptual forms in Ideality. Do, you see what I mean? :smile:

For this reason, I don’t think my pairing rises to the level of a new coinage. More importantly, I’m inclined away from characterizing the pairing as oxymoronic. I see the main thrust of the pairing as an expression of the bridge across the matter/immaterial divide — ucarr

OK. Let's just call Absential Materialism a "novel pairing" with seemingly paradoxical implications. It's oxymoronic only in contrast to Materialism as here & now Realism.

But my main interest is in the "bridge" of which you speak. My own personal worldview, Enformationism, is not posited as the opposite to Materialism, but as a 21st century update to that ancient worldview, expressed most simply in Atomism : nothing but atoms & void.

I suppose you could say that Deacon's absence discovers a purpose for the Void*1 : not only to serve as a passive complement to material Presence, but to make room for material Change. In a related sense, Absence/Void is the not-yet-real pool-of-Potential from which Actual material things and immaterial properties may Emerge. :smile:

The non-locality of ententional mind is not transcendence of our natural world of material_physical things. Instead, it is gravitational manipulation of spatio_temporally extended material things. — ucarr

I notice that you spell "intentional" with an "e", as I do in my own thesis, following Deacon. For me, it implies Energy as in Mental Causality --- intent to cause change --- which is unexplained by Materialism. My thesis postulates a precursor to Energy, Matter and Mind in the power to transform Potential into Actual. That "power" is what J. A. Wheeler referred to in his "it from bit" analogy of matter emerging from causal information. And the most common term for the power-to-transform is "Energy"*2.

I still don't fully grasp your analogy of Absence to the interaction of two gravitational fields. Deacon uses the metaphor of a whirlpool, sucking calm water into its maw. A graphic image might help me to imagine how two gravitational fields interact. A black hole is usually portrayed as a solo, not a pas de dieux. The image below is not very enlightening*3.

asks "what is the role of matter" in this scenario. As I proposed above, Absence may play the role of causal Energy in an evolving world of Stuff (matter ; the clay) and Changes to stuff (energy ; sculpting). BTW, in my philosophical model, Gravity is a form of Absential Energy, warping the immaterial Void. :nerd:


*1. Absence :
Deacon says that Absence is “a defining property of life and mind”. Like the name-less Tao, it’s a way, not a wayfarer, it’s a channel, not the flowing water.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

*2. What Is The Power of Absence?
Energy flows into The Void
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

*3. GRAVITY WHIRLPOOL

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is an examination of axiomatic sets that ground math equations. Without him looking for it specifically, Gödel elaborated within his theorem a representational description of absential materialism. Due to their encompass of absential materialism, a label for higher-order dynamical processes elaborated in Terrence W. Deacon’s Incomplete Nature, axiomatic math sets are strategically incomplete. — ucarr

I'm aware of Deacon's application of the mathematical Incompleteness Theorem to the real world in his book Incomplete Nature. However I was not familiar with Absential Materialism, so I Googled it, and found no entries. Hence, I assume the paradoxical & oxymoronic term is of your own coinage. Since this post is fairly long, and technically over my untrained head, I'd appreciate an abbreviated definition of "absential materialism" that distinguishes it from "immaterialism", and identifies why the term is needed for philosophical intercourse. I may want to use it in my own argumentation, but need to make sure I understand its meaning and relevance. :smile:

PS___ I looked for graphic images of intersecting gravitational fields, and didn't find any that looked like a model of Consciousness, or might illustrate Absential Materialism.


Paradox at the heart of mathematics :
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are connected to unsolvable calculations in quantum physics. A logical paradox at the heart of mathematics and computer science turns out to have implications for the real world, making a basic question about matter fundamentally unanswerable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18983

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposite meanings within a word or in a phrase that is a self-contradiction. As a rhetorical device, an oxymoron illustrates a point to communicate and reveal a paradox. ___Wikipedia

What I have produced in mathematical terms is an actual chain - I can make it more specific with definitions of functions, etc. if you desire. Your actual chain is a complete abstraction. — jgill
They are both abstractions. While the math proof is nice, I'm still failing to see how it address the point. I still don't see anything in this other than talking about origins. For example, I could start my origin at 0, or start it at one when counting. But an origin is no the same as a full chain of causality that does not require an observer. — Philosophim

As you noted, 's numerical chain is an abstract concept, not a perceptible "actual" thing. But he also doesn't seem to realize that the "First Cause" of his mathematical chain of abstractions was not "1" or "0" but his own imaginative mind. His chain would not exist in any sense, if he had not mentally pictured it in the first place.

It's easy to see that the First Cause of an abstract concept is an intentional Mind, but not so easy to accept that the First Cause of an actual physical evolutionary chain of creative events could originate in a creative Mind of some kind. In that sense, the Big Bang could be called a Conception, both literally (impregnation) and figuratively (creative idea). But the causal origin of that fetal conceptus had to exist, as a Potential, prior to the prime causal event (e.g. big bang). And its causal power had to be infinitely greater that that of any human intention.

Plato's First Cause was imagined as an abstract symbol of Causation, not a thing or being. His Logos was also an imaginary abstraction to represent the idea of a rational Principle responsible for the unique human ability to think logically, and to know that they are reasoning in accordance with the rules of Nature. So the First Cause/Logos was not a Real Thing --- because Reality had not yet been invented --- but merely the Potential to create real & thinking things.

"First" is a countable position in a sequence. But First Cause is the Origin or Genesis of the series from nothing : typically zero or infinity. Creative Causation is an immeasurable abstract idea, which implies an a priori Impetus or Force. And, an unreal non-physical Potential Origin of any physical series is a logical necessity to explain the emergence & existence of the Actual chain, from Potential no-chain. But, since we have no physical evidence of what existed prior to step "1", we can just call it "zero" or "infinity", or "god" --- all abstract concepts, with no instance in reality. :smile:


Intention : purpose ; to imagine a future state

Potential : capable of becoming real : possible.

Priority : the state or quality of being earlier in time or occurrence.

Generic : the cause of a whole genus (system of things & events)

Genesis : the origin or mode of formation of a thing or system.
Note --- My own Original Cause, of the chain of evolution, is what I call EnFormAction : the act of forming (manifesting) novelty. It's postulated as the precursor of Energy, Mind, and Matter. The origin of my own concept of generic causation was physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" motif : a hypothetical conceit combining Quantum & Information theories into the kernel of a Theory of Everything.

One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as ↪Philosophim
attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms.

One might better understand what is being said if it is understood in terms of dependence rather than causation. The topic remains an opposition between infinitism and foundationalism, with Philosophim taking a foundationalist position. The alternative is an acceptance of infinite complexity, something that mathematicians may be more comfortable with than physicist — Banno

I was not aware of the philosophical notion of Fundamentality*1. But that is exactly what my un-orthodox personal worldview is based on. For philosophical, not scientific, purposes, I view Generic Information*2 as the fundamental essence of Reality. As Wheeler implied, the causal power to enform (Aristotelian Potential) is the logical precursor of actual Energy, Matter, and Mind.

I try to avoid "infinite complexity" by postulating a logically necessary First Cause (Zero) to get the cosmic ball rolling (Big Bang . . . .), but make no conjectures into unknowable Infinity. Just as Zero (Potential for all numbers) must precede One in a continuum, the First Cause is "ontologically independent and ungrounded". Just as Zero is immaterial, the hypothetical Cosmic Cause is more like the ethereal potential we commonly call "Energy". All origin theories (Big Bang ; Multiverse : Inflation) take Energy & Laws for granted, as fundamental necessities.

Like Physicalism, my thesis is a metaphysical posit, not a physical fact. It goes one step beyond the matter/energy elements of Physicalism to the predecessor or progenitor of those "its". Other than its logical necessity, we know nothing of the First Cause, but we can understand that everything real is dependent upon actualized Possibility (zero). :smile:


*1. Fundamentality :
The notion of fundamentality, as it is used in metaphysics, aims to capture the idea that there is something basic or primitive in the world. This metaphysical notion is related to the vernacular use of “fundamental”, but philosophers have also put forward various technical definitions of the notion. Among the most influential of these is the definition of absolute fundamentality in terms of ontological independence or ungroundedness.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality/

*2. Matter from Information :
Physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical conjecture that information, not matter is fundamental.
"It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses" ___JAW
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/



ALL NUMBERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON ZERO

I do not know what transcending a language construct could possibly mean. — creativesoul

I can't speak for , but I doubt he means to go beyond human limits into the realm of divine omniscience. Instead, perhaps we can "transcend" a common dictionary meaning of a word, simply by looking at its context from a different perspective. Philosophers do that all the time. For example, Nagel transcended the commonsense notion of human-animal differences (ensoulment) by asking us to imagine that we see the world from that animal's perspective. That's how we can "know" the mind of a bat. It's called a subjective "thought experiment" as contrasted with an objective "empirical" experience. :smile:

If you reject the subjective/objective dichotomy the hard problem looks very different. — creativesoul

Yes, but. Gods are supposed to be above the subjective/objective limitations of humans. So, for omniscient-objective divine beings there is no "hard problem" of the relationship between body & mind. Therefore, to be completely objective, you would have to "know the mind of god"*1.

Empirical Science aspires to complete objectivity, by "rejecting" personal values & opinions in favor of directly observed & recorded Facts. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. A double-blind experiment would, in theory, reveal the "mind of god" on the problem in question. Yet, in practice, one man's Fact is another man's opinion*2.

Consequently, Empirical Science gets the "easy" questions, that have simple singular factual answers : it is or it ain't. But, it leaves the messy, value-laden questions to argumentative Philosophy : says who?. Hence, science may be the court of last resort for questions of objective Facts, but not for Subjective Meanings.The worldview of Physicalism is not a "hard" physical fact, but a "moot" metaphysical opinion*3. Hence, this thread. :cool:


*1.a. A. Einstein :
"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
*1.b. S. Hawking :
" If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God."

*2. Why science isn’t objective :
We think of science as being an objective account of the world, free from the influence of political and other biases. But things aren’t that simple. Evidence alone doesn’t tell you when you’ve had enough evidence to support a claim, so scientists sometimes have to make judgements that rely on ethical and political values. This realisation shatters our understanding of scientific objectivity as value-free.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-science-isnt-objective-auid-1846

*3. Metaphysical Physicalism :
In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Note --- Only God would know "everything". Which is why religions turn to their gods, instead of to scientists, for answers to "hard" questions about universal facts & absolute values. Yet, philosophers put their trust in human reasoning to obtain approximate answers to "value" questions.

So tell me, according to current science, what does ultimately exist? — Wayfarer
Well which "current science" is your non-scientific question referring to, Wayf? — 180 Proof

Objection, your honor, the defense is being evasive. The question was not asking about any particular genre of science, but merely about a scientific rather than philosophical position. Please direct the defense to answer the question about Ultimate Existence.

A possible answer -- though not scientific -- would be "No Ultimate Existence, only Proximate" : right here, right now. Not acceptable, because the questioner requested an empirical scientific fact to ground whatever opinion is offered. And a scientific answer would have to account for the un-resolved state of knowledge about the origin of the physical universe. It is observed to exist, but how or why did everything emerge from the unknown? Thus, addressing the creation/existence problem raised in the OP.

Aside : At this point, a scientist would probably just punt, but a philosopher would go for it on fourth down. Pardon the American hand/football metaphor. :joke:

Stipulation
Ultimate : being or happening at the beginning or end of a process
Existence : the state of being real or participating in reality.

Just to clarify though, the body/soul - instrument/harmony analogy is Pythagorean, not Platonic. Plato has Socrates argue against the analogy in the Phaedo. It's in the context of Plato's arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul. Plato doesn't like the analogy because it would imply that the soul (harmony) must disappear when the body (instrument) is destroyed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks. But it's a useful metaphor anyway. I may have to disagree with Plato though, on the immortality of the Soul. I tend to think of it, not as a ghost, but as the immaterial (mental ; metaphorical) Self-Concept/Personality of a self-conscious being/body*1. Hence, they are harmonious in the sense of an abstract/concrete duet. But when the concrete aspect dies, the duet does not automatically become a perpetual solo, but perhaps could "exist" as a vague memory in another mind. Besides, how could that which was never visible "disappear", like the fictional Cheshire cat? On this topic, you could classify my compromised position as a Physicalist/Metaphysicalist or Realist/Idealist duet. Not exactly Strong Emergence, but co-existence.

On the other hand, I do agree with Plato that a hypothetical First Cause/Logos must have logically existed, in some abstract or metaphysical sense, outside of space-time and all secondary causes. Hence, eternal. That's because, according to expert cosmologists, our space-time world is not eternal, but somehow suddenly emerged from unreality into reality. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing what ideal eternal existence would be like (Nagel).

As an amateur philosopher though, I can use mind-made words to represent unreal concepts such as Zero, Infinity, Eternity, and Soul. Likewise, words like "God" can point-toward an imaginary eternal Mind that continually imagines (sustains) our own Reality. Sadly, such self-reference boggles the mortal mind, and can lead to circular thinking.

The human intellect has imagined a variety of immaterial abstractions --- e.g. numbers ; metaphors --- that seem to be logically necessary or philosophically useful. Such non-things may be figments of imagination, but they are "persistent illusions" for philosophical thinkers. So I take them seriously, as challenges to any hardline physicalist worldview. :smile:


*1. Soul/Body and Mind/Body pairs "exist" in different senses. Life, Mind & Soul/Self are subjective processes/activities, not objective things. For example, when the engine of a car dies, its transportation function (process) dies with it. Yet, a physical machine can be repaired and restored to its proper function. But AFAIK, a "disappeared" Life/Mind has never been resurrected --- except of course as an ongoing metaphor/belief in other body/minds.

In short, when philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power, a very interesting conversation can begin. — Dermot Griffin

Meaning is personal, and Power is communal. So, the pursuit of Meaning is Philosophical, while the pursuit of Power is Political. :smile:

I was just reading the Phaedo for a class and it hit me that Plato's argument that the soul cannot be analogous to a harmony is literally the same argument against strong emergence that is still giving physicalists a headache 2,000+ years later. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Platonic concept of Body/Soul integrity, as a harmonious interaction, is new to me. So I googled it. As an analogy to pleasing musical synchrony*1, such essential consonance is posited by most religious & philosophical traditions : e.g Taoism. But from the perspective of modern Physicalism, such non-mechanical notions may be dismissed as romantic nonsense.

However, while my own personal worldview does not use the obsolete term "Soul" --- in the sense of an independent ghost --- the unity of Body & Mind is implicit. So, I see now that "Person"*2 can be described in terms of Body/Mind harmony, as defined in the 20th century sciences of Holism*3 and Systems theory*4. A System is a collection of independent parts (holons) that work together, in harmony, to form a new unity, with new functions. Hence, the human body/mind is an animated & enminded system that can't be separated into parts without killing the Life and extinguishing the Mind. Since Life & Mind go together like a flock of birds, eliminating one or the other will not result in a philosophical zombie, but in a corpse. :smile:


*1. What is Synchrony in music?
Musical synchrony increases a sense of shared intentionality and decreases the experience of self-other distinction [21,22,23,24], and can relate to a sense of communal identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946180/

*2. Person :
A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness,
Note --- That the "Being" --- more than a Thing --- is also a physical body is implicit, but not stated explicitly in the definition.

*3. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. What is holistic science? :
Holistic Science is a new and emerging science of systems and wholes, qualities and values. It allows us to look at the social, economic and ecological issues of the 21st Century in a new light. It helps us to come to understandings that go beyond the limits of our current scientific paradigm.
https://www.masterscompare.co.uk/masters-courses/holistic-science-23096/24594/


A HARMONY OF BIRDS

Many well-read participants here will read one or two statements from another and be reminded of some historical position or another simply by the appearance of a few key words that have been used in past. — creativesoul

I doubt that many posters on this forum are quite so simple-minded as that. Our personal vocabularies contain categorized beliefs encapsulated in "key words". But the purpose of a discussion forum is for us to open-up those capsules in order to learn about other beliefs, and to add new terminology to better define our own beliefs. A few may assume these threads are legal arguments intended to reveal The Truth as God intended. But mostly, we are satisfied to get a step "Closer to Truth".

Key words, especially "-isms", encapsulate complex belief systems into simple generalizations, that we use to avoid Talmudic verbosity. Yet, they also allow us to quickly see the "key" (salience) to our disagreements. Then, we can explore the implicit meanings behind the symbolic words, looking for areas where our beliefs may overlap or divide. With logical leverage we may be able to open a path to reach some philosophical detente, if not total agreement. :smile:

Unfortunately, you seem convinced that you know what my position is. It's a shame that that's the case, because I do not think that you do. — creativesoul

No, I am not convinced of your position on Physicalism, because such a universal concept includes a plethora of unstated assumptions, that we need to work through in order to reach a more specific understanding. For example, Physicalism, Materialism, and Naturalism are related worldviews, that differ in a few details. If none of those terms are close to your position, is there another label that you would accept?

My own worldview does not fit into any of the traditional categories --- such as Realism or Idealism --- so I have coined new words & phrases & labels, intended to suggest a novel way of looking at the world. On this forum, to establish my own position --- without excessive verbiage --- I provide links to expand upon my brief remarks in the post. After only a few interchanges, do you think you "know my position"? Are you open to further communication? :cool:

As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist" — Gnomon
There, you were spot on. That seems an unbridgeable divide between Way and myself. He insists that consciousness does not exist, and to me... that makes no sense. On my view, everything spoken about exists. It's just a matter of how. Simply put: That which has an effect/affect exists(is real). — creativesoul

I don't know where you got the idea that denies the existence of Consciousness. He does deny that Awareness is a physical object, but I assume you would agree with that. Your definition in terms of causation may be closer than you think to his, and to my own, understanding of both Physical and Metaphysical existence. Check-out Way's essay linked below, for his musings on "to be or to know". :wink:

*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-ligatures-of-reason-66b775d443d1

Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed.
— creativesoul
Yes, the awareness of physical emergence... — Gnomon
Here, you said "yes", but did not understand what you were agreeing to. I was claiming that that bit of knowledge was an emergent entity/thing. That was all I was saying at that time. — creativesoul

I was agreeing to your reference to an action (what's going on) that results in the "knowledge" (awareness ; conceptualization) that something novel has emerged from the transaction. Your emphasis may have been on knowledge as a "thing" (objective or subjective?), but mine was on the emergence as a transformation of one "thing" into another "kind of thing" (subjective Idea). :nerd:

I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning — Gnomon
So, we seem to agree that minds are existentially dependent upon brains. — creativesoul

Yes. As I said before, I am not aware of any free-floating minds (ghosts) in the real world. But, I do see the logical necessity for the Potential-to-evolve-Minds in the original "seed" of our contingent universe : popularly known as Big Bang, or Singularity, or God. However, you may not agree with that universalization of Mind Potential --- not as an entity, but as a Creative Cause. :grin:

Potential : the power to change statistical Possibility into physical Actuality

Hence the flatland of secular culture, dominated by relativism, scepticism and instrumental utility. Reconciling that has been my major interest. — Wayfarer

"Here he comes to save the day!" It's super-mensch to the rescue of dystopian society! :joke:

Mensch : a person of integrity and honor.
Perhaps a heroic philosopher?
Super-mensch the Reconciler?

If the worldview of Scientism dismisses metaphysical reasoning as groundless then I'd say that physicalism is groundless, since physicalism is a belief arrived at by metaphysical reasoning.
As such it would be a poor argument for physicalism. — Moliere

Ironically, all universal -isms --- including Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, and Idealism --- are beliefs based on Metaphysical induction. And they are groundless, in the sense that universals are not empirically derived. So, their value is only in that they distinguish one philosophical worldview from another.

Hence, Physicalism is differentiated from Materialism in that it implies more than one fundamental element : matter and energy. The essential rock of Scientism is the empirical scientific method, which grounds Physics, but not Philosophy. Idealism is founded on the mushy terrain of Concepts, which distinguishes that belief system from those grounded on Percepts. The non-empirical -isms can only be justified by pure logical reasoning, which Kant identified with Metaphysical Philosophy. :smile:


"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." ___ Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I always thought Shannon Information was a poor choice of a word. It's a technical specialty that's made a huge impact but isn't good science or philosophy just because of that.

I might sometimes look like I'm defending physicalism or be some how attached to it but I'm not. It just gets us to the point where we do what we do with our brains which really is the interesting part. And not just in philosophy.

Since our brains/minds seem to be capable of believing anything, true or false, having some grounding in the physical basis might keep us from getting off track. — Mark Nyquist

Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher. So, he was interested in getting measurable physical results (communication data throughput), not in exploring the metaphysical meaning of his term "Information". That's OK though, others have taken-up that task. My interest in Information was piqued by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical concept of "it from bit". Together, these two thinkers gave us new insight in the broader significance of mental ideas, by linking those incorporeal "bits" with real-world changes in material things (its). In other words, en-formation is causation. In my thesis, mental Information (useful knowledge) is merely one of many forms of General Causation, that I call EnFormAction.

If you were a working scientist, Physicalism --- nothing non-physical --- would be an appropriate belief system for your profession. But for philosophical thinkers, there is more to the world than just tangible things (materialism). Philosophy is concerned with non-things like Ideas & Opinions & Beliefs, that can't be dissected with a scalpel, and can't be reduced down to Atoms. Physicalism implies that there is only one way to exist : Reality. But, in his essay The Ligatures of Reason*1, discusses the Ideal existence of "universals", such as number, math & logic. Scientists study particular things, but Philosophers study general & holistic concepts. That approach is what came to be known as "Metaphysics". Literally, "in addition to physical Reality" (i.e. Ideality), not necessarily super-natural, or un-real. Unfortunately, Catholic theology tainted that aspect of Philosophy by association with dubious religious dogma.

So yes, as amateur philosophers, we should be held accountable for the "grounds" of our reasoning. But material Science is not the only valid foundation for philosophical interpretations & conclusions. For non-rational animals, the physical facts may be all they know. But, us rational humans share ideas & opinions that can't be accepted at face-value. Instead, philosophers have developed Logical rules and Rational methods for sifting the grain from the chaff. Whereas, Physics uses Reductive & Deductive means to determine reliable facts, Philosophy uses Holistic & Inductive reasoning to learn what is universally true. Unfortunately, some posters on this forum hold the materialistic worldview of Scientism, which dismisses Metaphysical reasoning as groundless. Instead, I have adopted a BothAnd policy of combining bare Facts with logical Reasons. :smile:


*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/the-ligatures-of-reason-66b775d443d1