I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon
Indeed. — praxis

I just read an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine*, that reminded me of your incredulous attitude toward my "weird" ideas. The title is The Nobel Disease : Why Intelligent Scientists Go Weird. The article describes "the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas". It goes on to note, "because merely entertaining the possibility of an unsupported claim, such as the existence of extrasensory perception, does not indicate a critical thinking lapse, we focus on Nobelists who clung to one or more weird idea with considerable conviction". One of those weird ideas may well be the next Relativity or Quantum theory.

Apparently, one talent that allows creative thinking is the ability to "entertain possibilities" that others say is impossible. I'm not a candidate for the Nobel, but some of the scientists who embrace the new notion of Information, such as Cosmologist Paul Davies, may well be. Anyway, if my ideas about Idealism are weird, I'm in good company. In my thesis, I'm "merely entertaining" the possibility that the post-Shannon Information theories may explain the "hard Problem" of Consciousness, among other weird aspects of the real world. :nerd:

* Yes, I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. And I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas.

Paul Davies : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic. — praxis

I favor Idealism for the same reason Plato did : it makes sense of human Consciousness. I favor Realism, for the same reason Aristotle did : It makes pragmatic Science possible. I favor Holism for the same reason Jan Smuts did : it gives us an elevated perspective on the world. If you prefer Parts to Wholes, that's OK. Just keep looking at the shiny stars, and ignore the mind-boggling Cosmos. :joke:

Holism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Jan Smuts : South African statesman, military leader, and philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. — I like sushi

Obviously, you have missed the point of my thesis, which is to go beyond Shannon's limited theory of Information toward a general theory (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation was a special case of Einstein's general theory of relativity.). It may sound New Agey to you, but it's not. Merely unfamiliar, and strange --- like Quantum Theory. Are Virtual Particles pseudoscience, just because you can't measure them?

Shannon's theory is indeed scientific and physical, while mine is philosophical and metaphysical. And it's not just me : Paul Davies is a prominent physicist and cosmologist, whose use of Information as the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is amenable to mine. Also, Howard Bloom, a certified genius and Omnologist (look it up) is also coming to the same conclusion : that everything, including Mind & Matter is essentially Information. If you don't like my version of Enformationism, check out theirs. If you don't like any such far-out notions, then just fuget-about-it. :joke:


The God Problem : Bloom’s understanding of a creative universe is based on Information Theory, but not Shannon’s meaningless 1s & 0s. According to the entropy definition of Information, “everything must tend toward chaos.” But, since the cosmos is heading in the opposite direction, the author looked for a different kind of constructive creative Information. He found it in “the act of informing”, or as I call it EnFormAction. Although Information is related to positive working Energy, there is a distinction : pure energy may be merely transmitted — throughput — while Meaning must be interpreted, relative to some perspective. Like energy, raw information is binary, either positive or negative, attractive or repulsive. Everything else is a variation on that (+ or -) duality, except for meaningful information, which ranges between the polar oppositions. It’s “relational”, and has the quality of “aboutness”. Since Meaning requires a function or application or usefulness, it also requires consciousness of relationships. Bloom says “then the amount of meaning in this cosmos is constantly increasing. Meaning defies the law of entropy.” Likewise, the “quantity” of consciousness is growing, as inter-relationships become more complex and organized.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page43.html

Omnology : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Omnology

I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons. — I like sushi

The quoted definition of "Information" is based on my personal worldview of Enformationism, not on any conventional scientific paradigm. But here's another opinion from a different perspective.

Shannon Information : "Roughly speaking, Shannon entropy is concerned with the statistical properties of a given system and the correlations between the states of two systems, independently of the meaning and any semantic content of those states."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

I will "attend" to see if anyone will say simply what the idea behind pansychism is. — tim wood

Panpsychism simply assumes that Mind is more fundamental to the real world than Matter. Since my own worldview is similar to ancient notions of Panpsychism, I could go into great detail to explain to you why it is a necessary assumption to make sense of the mental phenomena (e.g. Consciousness) of the world. But as an introduction, I'll just link to an article by philosopher Phillip Goff. :nerd:

Panpsychism is crazy, but it's also most probably true : "But many widely accepted scientific theories are also crazily counter to common sense"
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-crazy-but-its-also-most-probably-true

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work? — praxis

Because "X" is the same in both equations. Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.

Science studies what Aristotle called "Physics" (Natural Philosophy). Physics is anything we can detect with our bodily senses, which are tuned to quantum inputs of Energy (bits & bytes). Metaphysics is anything we know via our mental senses, which are tuned to holistic inputs of subjective Meaning (ideas & feelings). Physics is objective, only because it's easier to compare our material sensations, than to share our subjective mental sensations. What you "feel" is a ghost, I may "sense" as merely a light reflection. The difference is what it means to you.

But ultimately, the source of all that information comes from beyond the physical space-time world that began with a bang. In my thesis, the timeless spaceless Enformer is presumed to be un-real, consisting only of Potential, the power to create actual things. This is not based on empirical evidence, but from reasoning backwards into the "pre-time" before space-time. A materialist might call this undetectable Prime Cause "The Multiverse", but I call it "G*D". Conceptually, G*D is closer to Hindu Brahman, than to Hebrew Yahweh.

I propose holistic G*D, rather than particularistic Multiverse, to serve as an unprovable Axiom upon which my Pragmatic here & now worldview is based. But, hey, it's just a theory! You don't have to believe it, unless it makes sense to you. :nerd:

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

Brahman : Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Axiom : a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

Information :
# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness", that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning? — praxis

No. All things and ideas about things are components of (or consist of) Information : the Single Substance of the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) world. :nerd:

He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." — praxis

Yes. Information is both metaphysical mind-stuff, and physical material stuff. Information is the "Single Substance" of Spinoza's worldview. That's the novel notion that I call Enformationism. If you don't believe me, I have lots of scientific documentation in my boring "weird" thesis. :nerd:

PS__The Brain is Physical information, but the Mind is Metaphysical information. Information is that which gives meaning or useful Form to objects and subjects.

Ideas, Ideals, Principles : "Metaphysics is about things that do not change"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Metaphysical : relating to the part of philosophy that is about understanding existence and knowledge

Metaphysical : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

Information : The conceptual problem here is that the idea of “information” makes sense only in the context of an observer for whom something out there, in the indiscriminate jumble of the world, counts as information. Before life exists, there cannot be any such thing as information.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/18/demon-in-machine-paul-davies-review

PPS__A physical quantum particle, in a state of superposition, has no physical properties, such as velocity and location. It can be described only as a mathematical formula. The superposed state is virtual, not real. A "virtual" particle is nothing but mathematical Information. It exists only in essence, in potential, not in physical presence.

Virtual : The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

"You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result". — praxis

OK, here's the same answer in a different Form : A coin has two sides : Heads or Tails. What difference does it make if you call the Tail side the Head? it's still the same coin, but if you flip it and claim it came down Heads, when it's actually Tails, you'll be accused of cheating. Although both sides belong to the same coin, there is a meaningful difference between the sides. The difference is in the distinction between Parts and Wholes. The coin is both A> Heads and B> Tails. I assume "Holism" is not in your vocabulary. :yum:

Maybe information is this invisible, transcendental thing that can be seen to express itself in all manners of completely different systems in arbitrary ways or perhaps, information is simply an abstract concept we assign to things- surely it is one of the two. There is little reason to believe the former- to do so would be faith (there is no proof for information being some real, physical thing after all). — tom111

Paul Davies is a physicist, whose focus has shifted from tiny particles to the universe as a whole system : the Cosmos. And he believes, not based on "faith" but on evidence, that Information is the essence of reality --- of both Matter and Mind; both "invisible transcendental" Energy, and visible tangible Matter. This notion is gaining traction among even atheist scientists in the 21st century. :nerd:

The Demon In The Machine : Paul Davies interview, "Recognizing the power of information to dramatically transform material systems. . . . This is a more ambitious approach in which our work applies information theory to consciousness as well as life. There is a chapter in my book called ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ that addresses the consciousness puzzle.
https://www.plusalliance.org/press-room/demon-machine-professor-paul-davies

From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality-ebook/dp/B01N0Y8ECG/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies+information&link_code=qs&qid=1588528200&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-6

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics-ebook/dp/B00J8LQJA2/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies+information&link_code=qs&qid=1588528283&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-7

That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest

As usual, this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview.

Anyway, I just found another online article that is relevant to your own plight . . . at least, in the title. Umberto Eco’s Antilibrary: Why Unread Books Are More Valuable to Our Lives than Read Ones.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/umberto-eco-s-antilibrary-why-unread-books-are-more-valuable-to-our-lives-than-read-ones?utm_source=pocket-newtab

My own website is technically not a book, but it is generally "unread". That's due in part to my own failings, but also to the incomprehension of those who can't grok an unconventional idea. Most people are "looking for" new ideas that fit neatly into their pre-existing worldview, rather than ideas that challenge old views. Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? In bookstores, the philosophy shelf is a fraction of the fiction shelves.

Ironically, you were expecting to find a select few readers on this forum that do understand and appreciate philosophical thinking. But many, like me, are so involved in their own little projects, that they don't have time for yours. So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? :nerd:

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?

Please keep sniping at my thesis. I enjoy defending it against outdated conventional views. :yum:

Single Substance : "According to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, hold monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world."
"Thus, in his [Aristotle] hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form." [En-Form-Action]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information? — praxis

No. We can distinguish between invisible Matter (quarks) & invisible MInd Stuff (ideas), because they come in meaningfully different Forms. And "spirits" were simply an ancient term for causal forces and energy. What used to be called Spirits, Souls, Chi, or Prana, are simply different forms of Information. The same information that constitutes Matter and Mind, computer programs and human feelings. Isn't that weird? :joke:

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? — praxis

How much time do you have? The full answer is in the Enformationism Thesis, if you have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.

But for a short answer, I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". :nerd:

Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

↪Gnomon
Are you familiar with Alfred North Whitehead? I think you would like him a lot. — Pfhorrest

Yes. His general worldview is similar to mine, except for the special integrating role for information. But I found his book, Process and Reality, difficult to follow because of his frequent neologisms and special definitions for ordinary words. That's why I have an extensive Glossary of relevant terminology, and continue to clarify controversial issues in my blog. It's a "fun" hobby for an introvert. :smile:

↪Gnomon
What's weird about a form of idealism? — praxis

What's uncanny about Enformationism is that it reconciles Idealism with Realism and Spiritualism with Materialism. It's based on the cutting-edge scientific concept that immaterial Information --- not atoms, not water, not fire --- is the fundamental "stuff" of the world. Everything, from Matter to Mind, is a form of Information, including the Energy & Selection Algorithms that propel evolution. You could think of Enformationism as a 21st century atomic hypothesis, in which the "particles" are not things, but ideas or relationships. :nerd:

Is Information Fundamental ? : Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information—describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain. — Pfhorrest

I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine : Escaping The Academic Coal Mine. The author says, "I am currently crafting an article that tinkers with aspects of John Rawls" political theory that are so esoteric that they're probably of no interest to anyone not trapped inside the same isolated bubble. So why do it?" He also notes that "82% of academic articles in the humanities are not cited. Not once." Then he wonders, "If research is not being read beyond a nerdy few, is it worth doing, at least in a professional context? Shouldn't it rather be a hobby?"

I'm long retired, and don't depend on my philosophical scrivenings for income or professional advancement. So for me, my tinkering with cosmological ideas is just a hobby, like collecting stamps. Wanna see my cosmic worldview stamp collection? :nerd:

I recognise that both you and Gnomon have relatively complete philosophical systems mapped out, which you continue to reference during discussions. I’ve started down that rabbit hole a few times, and while I was excited to read elements of my own philosophy reflected back to me, I eventually got lost in a sea of complex scientific concepts or neologisms. I wonder if either of you have considered condensing your system into something that fits onto a t-shirt? — Possibility

I'm aware that philosophy is not an emotion-driven game, but hard rational work. Hence it will never be as popular as shoot-em-up video games. But, in writing the Enformationism thesis, I was driven by the philosopher's emotion : Love of Wisdom. It was an attempt to put my random thoughts into an organized form, so I could objectively see what I was subjectively thinking. That probing process continues in my blog, and in this forum. It was never about popularity, or ego-boosting, or fantasy fun. But, for a target audience of one, it has been very successful.

I have played with the notion of summarizing the thesis of Enformationism in a T-shirt logo. But I'm not there yet. Here's a crude first pass at a concise equation of "Information" :

E = MC^∞.
Where "E" is EnFormAction ; "M" is the Macrocosm ; and "C" is Constant Creativity ; and the exponent is Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity).

Unfortunately, few six year olds would find that informative, or fun. So, back to the old drawing board. :nerd:



EnFormAction :

En- __ is the power (Energy) to cause something to change state.

-Form- __ is the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.

-Action __ the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.

So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.

Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.

PS__another T-shirt epigram : "Mother Nature Begets Herself".

So you want to employ information without reference to any of its specificity? Just a rhetorical crutch? Par for Wayfarer course. — StreetlightX

Yes, Wayfarer seems to be trying to turn the focus from the Reductive methods of Shannon Information Theory to a more Holistic approach. It's not a "rhetorical crutch". but a philosophical category shift : "These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem". If you can't understand why a philosopher would prefer to focus on human "meaning" than mathematical "specificity", you're on the wrong forum. :cool:

But I think your philosophy is a little too idiosyncratic, and little on the pop-sci end of the spectrum, for my liking. — Wayfarer

The presentation of Enformationism is unapologetically idiosyncratic, and the website was inspired by the site of another far-out "peculiar" thinker, Gevin Girobran : http://everythingforever.com/.

Since I am not an academic philosopher, and have a tendency to whimsy, rather than profundity and gravitas, the playful theme of the site is based on the movie The Matrix. That may seem "pop-sci", but the movie raised deep philosophical questions that sober philosophers have taken seriously. I don't take myself too seriously, but I am earnest about the validity of the general Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd philosophy.

The general worldview of Enformationism may sound superficially similar to the various New Age religion/philosophies. But where they tend to look backward to ancient religions (e.g. Hinduism), my intent is to look forward to a reintegration of science, philosophy, and religion. I personally have no religious practice, but I don't look down on those who do. :cool:

BothAnd Philosophy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

I have no idea of what your weird idea is. — praxis

You could say that Enformationism is a 21st century version of ancient Platonism (metaphysics) combined with Aristotelianism (physics).

Enformationism :
As a scientific 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.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.
What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu

I'm not familiar with John Collier (sci-fi writer??). Where can I find his erroneous spelling of Information with an "E". Google doesn't show any connection between Collier and "Enformation". Was there any particular significance to the misspelling?

I chose that spelling in part because the term "Informationism" was already out there as a reference to ideological propaganda. And partly because of the connection between Information and Energy, as in my neologism, EnFormAction. :smile:

Enformation : Obsolete form of "information".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enformation

EnFormAction : "the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PS__Apparently, praxis has a philosophical view that is "well-established", and Enformationism ain't it. :wink:

The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics. — praxis

Ha! You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." :cool:

Ha, ha! If I spend so much time on the Enformationism project in order to make money (material gain), I'm a profound failure, and an abject fool. Please don't quote me on that. :joke:

Ha, ha, ha! The Enformationism welcome page specifically indicates that it is not intended to be a typical academic paper on some well-documented philosophical doctrine : "I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously." :nerd:

Yes, I’ve looked at them. — Wayfarer

Ah so, grasshopper! you "looked" but did not see. :joke:

The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps what you are working on is a comprehensive philosophical WorldView. I created a website to present my thesis of the "big picture", which I called Enformationism, as a counterpoint to the two most common modern worldviews : A> Spiritualism and B> Materialism. Like you, I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out.

Ironically, it's both A & B. Regardless of its lack of popular appeal though, the thesis has served its primary purpose : to organize a clear picture in my own mind of how & why the world works as it does, and its relationship to me. This is a replacement for the basically Spiritualist perspective of my religious training, and the Materialist cosmology of my scientific learning. Anyway, I'm still motivated to develop that thesis by interfacing with others focused more on the tiny bits & pieces of philosophy : such as "whether chairs exist". :nerd:

I would like to add John D. Collier's Information, Causation, and Computation and Causation is the Transfer of Information — Harry Hindu

Thanks. I agree with this phrase : "Causation can be understood as the transfer of information". That is what I call EnFormAction in my thesis.

But what bothers me a bit, is the introduction of 'information' as a metaphysical simple - as a fundamental constituent, in the sense that atoms were once thought to be. . . . So - I'm totally open to the notion that 'information is fundamental', but it seems to me to leave an awful lot of very large, open questions, about what 'information' is or means or where it originates. — Wayfarer

I have been so impressed with the notion that Information is the "fundamental constituent" of the world that I created a website to present my emerging worldview as a thesis. I called it Enformationism to distinguish it from the obsolete worldviews of spooky Spiritualism and mundane Materialism. In the light of 21st century science, those contradictory views are obsolete. Instead, the world seems to be, philosophically, a bit of both : Spiritualism (Meta-physics, Mind, Ideas) and Materialism (Physics, Matter, Atoms). I support my compatiblist view by noting that Information has been found in two real-world forms : malleable tangible Matter & creative intangible Energy, as expressed in the equation, E=MC^2, and two Meanings (polysemic) : Shannon's meaningless syntax, and Bergson's meaningful semantic “difference”. In my thesis, Energy is EnFormAction.

Paul Davies is probably the most prolific proponent of Information as the fundamental “atom” of modern Science. But there are many other scientists and philosophers who have come to the same conclusion. Yet, they wrestle with the implications of Matter as enformed Mind, and that the world functions like an intentionally programmed system. Some of those Information advocates remain Atheists or Agnostics (by adopting a cartesian Dualist stance), but others become resigned to the assumption of a Creative Mind of some kind (the Monistic origin of the Mind/Matter dichotomy).

You say you are open to the Information revolution, “but what is it?”. My website and blog are dedicated to answering such questions. :nerd:

Is Information Fundamental? : https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Blog Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

"Hard as Shannon tried to keep his listeners focused on his pure, meaning-free definition of information, this was a group that would not steer clear of semantic entanglements."
___James Gleick, The Information

But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. — Pfhorrest

Your implication may be correct that this forum is not frequented primarily by academically-trained philosophers, but mostly by amateur & self-taught thinkers like me. Your interests, and I assume your training, are directed toward very abstruse & abstract topics. But many posters here use the forum to share gossip about politicians and viral pandemics, instead of pondering Liberty/Ethics/Justice, or the Viral Memes of Sophistry.

I hope you will continue to post here. I find your comments enlightening. But I admit that most of your linked stuff is way over my head. What's "fun" for me is the challenge of convincing people who know it all that I know more than they do. . . . Just kidding. :snicker:

The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe. — jacksonsprat22

It's true that the Multiverse, like God, is assumed to be self-caused or self-existent. But most Mverse theories describe the Big Bang (emergence of known from unknown) as caused by some mysterious magical creative property of the Mverse. Regarding the topic of this thread, for Mverse believers, "Everything" may not have a beginning, but the only "thing" we actually know anything about certainly had a big bang beginning. Hence, we infer that it must have a cause : either A> Creative Intelligence or B> Creative Randomness (oxymoron).

According to atheist writer Howard Bloom, in The God Problem, the universe is inherently "creative" (positive causation), but he finds no good external explanation for that inventive power, and concludes that the universe itself is god-like. But, un-directed Energy is more likely to be destructive than constructive. Yes?

Ironically, CommonSenseAtheist quoted below, describes the Mverse in terms similar to Plato's First Cause, which also emerged somehow from primordial Chaos. But the actual construction from randomness to organization was attributed to an intelligent Demiurge (demigod).

Hence, a contingent (not self existent) Miniverse, with a scientifically-confirmed beginning, necessarily requires some "concept of causation". Don't you agree? :nerd:


Multiverse Generates Universe : All theories of the multiverse assume quantum physics to provide the element of spontaneity, to make the bangs happen. They assume pre-existing space and time. They assume the normal notion of causality, a whole host of pre-existing conditions." Davies said there are about "10 different basic assumptions" of physical laws that are required "to get the multiverse theory to work."
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

First Cause : In contrast, the multiverse theories begin with pure chaos, out of which order must inevitably arise.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

I'd say from the unknown to the unknown, the other from the known to the unknown. Big difference, unless you know something about "Theistic Creation" that I do not. — tim wood

Theists, which comprise the vast majority of humans, reason from their experience of how the world works on a local scale to how it might work on a universal scale. Since the ancients had no knowledge of abstract Energy, they attributed all causation to intelligent Agents. Energy is invisible, and is only known via its effects on Matter. Likewise "gods" are invisible, and only known via inference from Effects to Causes. So their myths of gods were the primitive "science" of their day.

If you lived back then, you would have had no better explanation for Natural Causation. From your lofty perspective on the pinnacle of 21st century Science though, you can explain invisible causes in terms of the technical sounding word, "Energy". Which can be defined only mathematically, by what it does, not what it is. That "knowledge" may allow sophisticated moderns to feel superior to the ignorant theists --- ancient & modern --- but your Energy is a ghost too. That creative evolutionary energy (agency) may seem unintelligent to you, but it has constructed your amazing world from a pinpoint of potential. :cool:


Energy : what is energy made of ? Nothing but potential, abstract power, agency.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Energy is Immaterial : energy is agency
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic

Agency : 2, action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.

Each proposes that the universe originated from a single thing or entity that cannot be identified or experimented upon, and is therefore absolutely non-scientific. — Greylorn Ell

Unless you have a better idea, I'd be careful about labeling serious conjectures about Ultimate Origins as "stupid". Any speculations on the First Cause or Prime Mover are necessarily Philosophical and not Scientific. Any notions about what came "before" the Big Bang are inherently Metaphysical, not Physical.

I agree that both the Theistic Creation and self-existent Multiverse theories are extrapolations from the known into the unknown, and are functionally equivalent. Both Ultimate Causes resulted in the "imperfect" world we know & love, or love to hate. But there is a philosophical distinction between them. Theism posits an explanation for the non-physical aspects of reality, such as Mind, Consciousness, Mathematics & Universals : an intelligent agent. But Multiverse Materialism leaves those significant features of reality as Black Box Brute Facts, to be accepted without question.

That's why I have worked-out a hypothetical Origins theory that combines the best of both worldviews. It's a philosophical thesis, based on physical evidence, but not empirically provable. It's not appropriate as a basis for either Science or Religion, only for a personal possible philosophical understanding of how & why the world is what it is. It works for me. :cool:

I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as "Occam's Razor." — Greylorn Ell

I don't know why a discussion of Ultimate Origins, for which no one is an expert, has become so contentious. Anything you say will be a personal opinion, not a scientific fact. Anyway, here's a simple diagram of the Occam's Razor principle. It's not an irrefutable principle of Logic, just a heuristic shortcut. :cool:

David Hume (non-verbatim) says doing metaphysics is impossible because what is beyond the physical cannot be perceived. — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes & no. It's true that anything non-physical cannot be perceived via our physical sensory organs. Yet Metaphysics (at least in my definition) is not about Perception but Conception. By using our power of conception (to give birth to novelties), we can create mental images (abstractions) of things that are not there, and we can "see" into the future by conceptually projecting current trends. So metaphysics may be impossible for lower animals, but humans do it all the time.

Other than that quibble, your PUP is a practical definition of scientific Objectivity. It combines multiple subjective impressions into a statistical approximation of ultimate Truth or Fact. Ironically, PUP is also used by religious believers to confirm their faith in cases of mass delusions or apparitions.


Conception : The power or faculty of apprehending of forming an idea in the mind; the power of recalling a past sensation or perception; the ability to form mental abstractions. An image, idea, or notion formed in the mind; a concept, plan or design.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/conception

Perception : In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of getting, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information. It includes the collection of data from sense organs through to the interpretation made by the brain. ... Perception is a lot more than just "information coming in".

Metaphysics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Objectivity : Agreement in different subjects’ judgments is often taken to be indicative of objectivity. Philosophers commonly call this form of agreement “intersubjective agreement.”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Religious Mass Perceptions : What you see sometimes depends on what others say they see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Medjugorje

Like these fossils, do philosophical concepts have origins deep in the human mind's past? — TheMadFool

Sounds like you're thinking of something like Jung's Racial Memory or Collective Unconscious, and Plato's Archetypes. These are interesting possibilities, but are scientifically debatable.

Racial Memory : https://dictionary.apa.org/racial-memory
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/genetic-memory-how-we-know-things-we-never-learned/

Archetypes : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype

This seems to suggest that vagueness is an aspect of digital systems and so, the brain, understood as functioning in discrete brain states (digitally), should generate vague concepts. — TheMadFool

Your question may be related to the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness" : how do subjective sensations and feelings arise from objective interactions of insensate matter? The answer is not likely to be discovered by reductive analysis, but by holistic synthesis. In any case, it's not easily understood, and may require a new Einstein to simplify it into a formula that can be printed on a T-shirt. However, I suspect that both continuous & discontinuous phenomena are indeed an inherent aspect of our physical (matter) and metaphysical (mind, math) world.

Some of my own speculations on such questions are derived from the physical phenomenon of Phase Change, and the psychological feature of Model Dependent Realism. Phase transitions (solid, liquid, gas) are common in physics, but poorly understood. Where do the new properties of ice come from, if they are not somehow inherent-but-invisible in the previous form? My (long) answer would be based on the Enformationism theory [Metaphysical Information is more fundamental and essential than Physical Matter]. Model based realism assumes that the human mind does not sense ultimate reality, but constructs its own model from bits & pieces of the whole puzzle. This is a form of Holism [as defined by Jan Smuts, not by New Agers] in which disparate parts add-up to something more than the numerical sum. Philosophical Holism is an alternative perspective to scientific Reductionism. It also involves a "progressive grading of wholes", which Koestler called "holons".

Another aspect of your question may be found in the math of Fuzzy Logic. Ironically, programmers have learned how to make digital computers think like analog humans, by applying Boolean Algebra algorithms to the otherwise discrete language of 1s & 0s. The result is less certain, but more broadly useful and meaningful answers. The vague answers must be interpreted like poetry instead of mathematics. On Star Trek, Mr. Data's digital-logic required a special Emotion Chip in order to deal with the imprecision of human feelings. :nerd:


Phase Transitions : https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392043.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195392043-e-6

Model Dependent Realism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Holism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

Fuzzy Logic : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

If we accept that the brain speaks in a digital language then these vague concepts must be translatable into a digital code of off/on neuronal states. — TheMadFool

Maybe the Mind translates from Brain code into "Soul" meaning.

I suspect that the unstated assumption here is that the conscious Mind communicates with itself in the same digital language that the subconscious Brain uses within its modules. But I'm guessing that the Mind uses a holistic language (words not bytes) when we are consciously thinking. That's because mechanical neural processes (digital machine language) must be converted into a form (ideas, symbols, concepts) that is usable for communicating with other external minds via human language. All spoken languages seem to have evolved from physical body gestures, such as pointing to mean "that" or "you". And gestures are inherently analog, because they can't reproduce the speed & accuracy of digital transmission.

Therefore, gestures and words are used to symbolize the flow of millions of neural bits into generalized holistic concepts. This simplification of complexity is necessary for the same reason computer code of 1s & 0s must be translated into unbroken chunks of human language, in order for us meat machines to understand. But the precision that is lost in the translation makes our concepts fuzzier. Yet it also makes them more flexible. Hence, the broad range of meanings that you refer to as vagueness.

NOTE : I have no expertise in such topics. But I was intrigued by your question. So I'm just exploring possible explanations off the top of my head. Does the machine Brain vs soul Mind analogy make sense?

PS__While the electrical signals in neurons may be digital, neurotransmitters are more holistic. That's why a shot of adrenaline causes a general feeling of fear or arousal, that can only be translated into words with difficulty, because of its vagueness. Emotions are in the middle ground between digital data and conceptual words.

PPS__Computer Programmers think in one of many human languages, then write in a specialized stripped-down programming language, and finally use a compiler to convert those one-word-one-meaning terms into strings of meaningless digits.


Hand gestures & spoken language : https://phys.org/news/2019-08-gestures-language.html

1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts?

2. Does the existence of vague concepts imply that the analog mind is not the same as the digital brain i.e. is the mind not the brain? — TheMadFool

I can't give you the answer you are looking for. But I can speculate on how a digital process can produce analog outputs. Here's a quick sketch.

First, the brain is not purely digital. Although we think of neurons firing off & on as a digital process, the storage of that data is not digital. Instead, it is relational in a complex context. Nevertheless, everything physical is ultimately quantized into discrete on-off, positive-negative dichotomies. But when we view a cluster of microscopic objects at the macro level it appears to be continuous. That's because the mind tends to average zillions of data inputs into unified whole objects. What we call "Mind" is not an object itself, but a process of conceptualizing manifold sensory data into singular subjective meanings relative to the unitary self. [that statement may take several readings before it makes sense]

Basically, physical Objects (e.g brain) are quantum mechanical systems composed of discrete particles and quanta of energy. But the meta-physical Mind is holistic and continuous, because it's not a thing, but a concept, an idea. A mental concept is necessarily holistic, because when broken into parts, it loses its integrity, its meaning.

As an analogy, think of the brain as a flashing light bulb. When the frequency of flashing exceeds your meat brain's capacity to discriminate, the light will be conceptualized as continuous. Similarly, zillions of data bits stored in the brain, are reconstituted and recalled as analogous to the original unitary object. Although the concept must remain integrated, we can mentally dial it up or down so that the continuous light appears brighter or darker. In other words, we can mentally evaluate the data to suit our subjective purposes, while remaining relatively true to objectivity. Even vague concepts retain enough of their original identity, to be identified with the original object.

So, yes, the Mind is not the Brain, but our averaged-out concept of what the brain does --- ignoring the minute digital details in favor of the whole continuous concept.

I'd better quit while I'm behind. Because this vague reasoning could quickly fade into babbling nonsense. :cool:


Brain analog or digital? : Information in the brain is represented in terms of statistical approximations and estimations rather than exact values.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/27/is-the-human-brain-analog-or-digital/#26dbf1867106

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

Does America need an oversight agency, why or why not? — Shawn

In theory, Congress is supposed to be the oversight committee for intelligence agencies. But, in practice, the dominant party may choose to look the other way, when secret operations are aimed at ends they approve, even when the means are illegal. So, ultimately, I guess we rely on whistle-blowers, as in the Iran-Contra affair. :cool:

I am here seeking a consensus on "what is the excess of patience?" — Lecimetiere

One way to describe an "excess of patience" is Apathy. Impatience is high motivation, low control. Patience is moderation of (control over) passion, as in Stoicism. It derives from Latin "Patiens" (suffering), as in the "passion of Christ". So, an excess of willingness-to suffer might be Apathetic (absence of passion). If you are clinically depressed, you may patiently endure your suffering to an excessive degree. Even the Buddha-like Stoics would consider psychological depression as going too far with suppressed emotions. :fear: :groan: :cool:

Apatheia : Whereas Aristotle had claimed that virtue was to be found in the golden mean between an excess and a deficiency of emotion (metriopatheia), the Stoics sought freedom from all passions (apatheia). It meant eradicating the tendency to react emotionally or egotistically to external events, the things that cannot be controlled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheia

Is it possible to define anything, in a encompassing way, to describe something in a singular manner? — ISeeIDoIAm

Yes. People do it all the time. But conventional computers can't do it. We know things like trees by defining their essence, not in words, but in feelings. The "essence" is not a collection of parts that must be enumerated in order to define the object. Instead, it is how we categorize it relative to our personal perspective.

For ordinary pragmatic purposes, the human mind defines trees and dogs holistically. It's only for theoretical purposes that science attempts to define a thing or species reductively. The holistic image of a tree in my mind is singular, and is easily distinguished from a bush or a dog, but difficult to put into words.

What I'm calling the "essence" of a thing is similar to the notion of an immaterial Soul. It's a holistic pattern; yet not the visible dots, but the invisible links or inter-relationships. So, if the thought of defining an individual "overwhelms" you, just back off a bit in order to see or feel the whole, as the parts fade out of focus. Unfortunately for a philosopher, you will not be able to define it by the details, but only metaphorically, by what it's like to you --- it's "aboutness". As you implied, the essence is a subjective "quality", not an objective thing.

Hence, you can't be specific, but you can summarize the essence of a thing by noting its general defining quality. But, as Justice Potter Stewart noted, that's easier thought than said. :nerd:


"I know it when I see it" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Human Essence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

Aboutness : " this is not just a feature of subject matter, but its essence."
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691144955/aboutness

Cognitive computing : https://cra.org/crn/2016/09/computing-cognition-future-knowing-humans-machines-forging-new-age-understanding/

Theory of Enformed Systems : https://hilgart.org/enformy/$wsr02.html