• Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    ↪Gnomon
    :up: Deacon's is one of those books I should get around to reading, although I know enough about him to be open to his approach.     — Wayfarer
    Deacon's Incomplete Nature has become my "bible" for getting a scientist's understanding of certain mysteries of science, that we debate on this forum. My second volume is full of yellow marks and marginal annotations. His scientific credentials are in Anthropology (study of humanity), Evolutionary Biology, and Neuroscience. His associate, Jeremy Sherman, wrote a book expanding on the evolution of self-conscious animals : Neither Ghost Nor Machine, the Emergence and Nature of Selves.

    A key innovation of Deacon's book is the concept of Absential Aboutness (Potential), a novel feature of human awareness. Other topics are Holism, Emergence, Teleonomy/Teleology, Autogenesis, and Constraint (natural laws). It's a naturalistic account for Life, Mind, Soul/Self, Sentience, and Consciousness. :smile:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    ↪Wayfarer
    did a good job of answering these materialistic challenges to the Hard Problem, with philosophical argumentation. But scientific evidence carries more weight on this forum. So, I'd like to give it a shot, with a focus on the distinction between Physics and Meta-Physics, as postulated in my own amateur Enformationism thesis. Way may not agree with all of my arguments or evidence. :smile:

    You have to understand, if you accept the hard problem as true, you can NEVER state, "Computers do not have a subjective experience." You don't know. Can you be a computer processing AI algorithms? Nope. So if we create a machine and program that exhibits all the basic behaviors of consciousness, you have no idea if it has a subjective experience or not. — Philosophim
    We determine that computers-do-not-experience-subjectively in the same way we "know" that other humans do experience the world in a manner similar to our own : by rational inference from behavior. So, the Hard Problem is not about the behavioral evidence of Consciousness, but about its lack of material properties. :smile:

    1. Consciousness is able to exist despite a lack of physical capability to do so. — Philosophim
    For my thesis, Consciousness (C) is an immaterial state of awareness, that arises from a physical process, not an entity that exists as an independent thing. I compare it to the mysterious emergence of physical Phase Transitions, such as water to ice*1. Some ancient thinkers, lacking a notion of physical energy, imagined the living & thinking & purposeful Soul, as human-like agent, or as something like the invisible breath or wind that you can feel, and can see it move matter around. Modern Materialism seems to criticize attempts to explain C, based on the assumption that the explainer is referring to a Soul, that can walk around as a ghost.

    However, if you think of C as a noumenal form of Energy, or EnFormAction as I call it, then its existence is physical only in its causal consequences, not as a material object. We can't see or touch Energy, so we infer its immaterial existence from its effects on matter : changes of form or state. Those transformations are noumenal inferences instead of phenomenal sensations. Consequently, C doesn't function like a machine, but more like magic; hence the difficulty of explaining it in terms of mechanisms.

    The "physical capability" of Energy to exist is taken for granted, because we can detect its effects by sensory observation, even though we can't see or touch Energy with our physical senses*2. Mechanical causation works by direct contact between material objects. But Mental Causation works more like "spooky action at a distance". So, Consciousness doesn't work like a physical machine, but like spooky gravity, or metaphysical intention. :smile:

    *1. New research details water's mysterious phase transitions :
    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-mysterious-phase-transitions.html

    *2. Evidence of Energy :
    Therefore, although energy itself isn't visible, you can detect evidence of energy.
    https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/EvidenceofEnergy.pdf

    2. Demonstrate a conscious entity that has no physical or energetic correlation. — Philosophim
    Again, in my thesis, Consciousness is defined as a process or function of physical entities. We have no knowledge of consciousness apart from material substrates. But since its activities are so different from material Physics, philosophers place it in a separate category of Meta-Physics. And religious thinkers persist in thinking of Consciousness in terms of a Cartesian Soul (res cogitans), existing in a parallel realm.

    Despite Life After Death interpretations, there is no verifiable evidence of C manifesting apart from an animated physical body*3. But my thesis postulates that both Physical Energy and Malleable Matter are emergent from a more fundamental element of Nature : Causal EnFormAction*4 (EFA). The Big Bang origin state was completely different from the current state, in that there was no solid matter as we know it. Instead, physicists imagine that the primordial state was a sort of quark-gluon Plasma, neither matter nor energy, but with the potential (EFA) for both to emerge later. And ultimately for the emergence of Integrated Information as Consciousness. :smile:

    *3. Consciousness after death :
    From a strictly scientific viewpoint, we don't know. There is certainly no verifiable, repeatable evidence that the consciousness continues to exist. Nor is there any particular scientific reason to believe it does.
    https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-our-consciousness-after-we-die-Does-it-simply-cease-to-exist-or-does-it-continue-on-in-some-form

    *4. Mass & Energy are forms of Information :
    the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, stating that information transcends into mass or energy depending on its physical state;.
    https://www.sci.news/physics/information-fifth-state-matter-10638.html

    3. If consciousness is not matter and/or energy, please demonstrate evidence of its existence without using a God of the Gaps approach. — Philosophim
    The existence of Matter & Energy is taken for granted, due to evidence of the senses, but the origin of the material world remains a mystery : is it self-existent, or contingent? The Big Bang theory is based on physical evidence observed 14 billion years after the hypothetical event. We now grudgingly accept that our world is temporary, only because the math sputters-out at at T=0/∞. Is that more like 12am or 12pm on the clock? The evidential Gap, beyond the evidence, can be filled with speculation of Creation, or a Tower-of-Turtles hypothesis.

    Unlike the material world, we require no math or theories to provide evidence of Self-Consciousness. It's self-evident ; mental ideas are all we know about anything. But Consciousness in other beings is not so obvious. Neurologists look for sensory signs of Awareness, such as verbal behavior, arousal, brain activity and purposeful movement. So, it's obvious that Consciousness does not exist in isolation, but is dependent on a> material body, b> neural complexity, and c> animation of body. But what is Life, and how do we know it exists? Schrodinger postulated that Life could be defined as 'negative entropy' — something not falling into chaos and approaching 'the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death'. Negentropy is positive Energy (or EFA), animating the material world.

    Similarly, Tononi's Integrated Information Theory quantifies Consciousness in terms of Complexity and Wholeness of living systems. Thereby, he hopes to provide quantitative evidence of its existence, and perhaps of its relative quality. My own thesis, defines Consciousness in terms of Energy (EnFormAction), and of Holistic Integration of sub-systems. Yet, our sensory evidence still requires physical inputs, just as any other form of Information reception. That's why, for behavioral observations, we require rational inferences.

    Therefore, Philosophical questions about Mind & Consciousness depend on personal reasoning; logical deduction from the meta-physical evidence of intentional activities. If you can't make that computation from available evidence, then you live in a matterful but mindless & meaningless world. And the mystery of Consciousness is dispelled, as a ghost, with a wave of dismissal. :smile:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    The brain produces or is involved in producing neurochemicals, endocrines and so on, but it doesn’t produce numbers or words. Your ontology is simply that because matter is fundamental, the brain is material then it must be the case. — Wayfarer
    I've been asking for some time now, if the brain doesn't produce them, where are they? What material are they made out of? I've clearly pointed out that the brain, which is physical, can retain information, make judgements, etc. This includes numbers.     — Philosophim
    Numbers, and other mental concepts, do indeed seem to be a product of brain activities. Yet the relevant question is not what are they made of, but "How Mind Emerged From Matter", which is the subtitle of Terrence Deacon's masterwork : Incomplete Nature. Another way to express the Hard Problem is : "how does physical activity (neural & endocrinological) result in the meta-physical (mental) functions that we label "Ideas" and "Awareness"? Scientific investigations have explained how physical actions in an internal combustion engine can result in the function we call "Motion" or "Transportation". It's all push & shove of atoms on atoms. Yet, neurons are not spark plugs and hormones are not gasoline. So, what's-pushing-on-what to allow the brain to produce Mental Activity?

    There are other kinds of physical activity (processes) that defy the simple mechanical laws of Newton. Even that genius was baffled by the "function"*1 of Gravity to move atoms without touching them. Einstein later, in a quantum context, called such mysterious activity : "spooky action at a distance". What's spooky about Potential*2 is that it's not mechanical, but geometric ("warped space"). Ironically, saying that mathematical relations can change the shape of the immaterial "fabric" of emptiness (the container of matter) sounds like magic. Yet, modern physicists accept that bizarre notion, because they have no better explanation.

    I'm no Einstein, but I have learned from physicists, such as Paul Davies, and neuroscientist Terrence Deacon, that the Absence of matter can have real-world effects. What these nothings have in common is something similar to mathematical relationships (ratios) that we now know as various forms of In-form-ation. For my thesis, I call the progenitor of all emergent sub-forms in the world : EnFormAction --- the power to transform. When matter changes form, we attribute the cause to Energy. But, like Gravity, we only know what it does physically, not what it is essentially. For scientific purposes, we just label the observation with a noun name, like "Energy", and define it with a verb name, like "Causation". But the essence or quality of the Change Agent is left undefined ; perhaps because to explain it might seem to attribute magical powers to nothingness, contrary to the belief system of determinstic Materialism.

    FWIW, my answer to your question (about the substance of the mind machine), is that mental Functions (Mind/Consciousness/Awareness) are not made of massive Matter, but consists of causal Information (power to transform). Recent scientific investigations have found that Information is much more than the empty entropic vessels of Shannon's definition. Information also is found in material & energetic forms. So, we can infer that all Causation in the world is "made", not of Matter, but of Power/Potency. And the effects of that causal ability on matter is what we call Change. The bottom line of my own approach to Consciousness questions is to propose something more philosophical and less scientific as the fundamental "substance"*3 of the world : cosmic Potential, that Deacon called Teleodynamics*4, or what I call EnFormAction. :smile:


    *1. Function : an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
    Note --- Mind functions are not material objects, but mental subjective processes working toward a future state or purpose.

    *2. Potential :
    a> having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
    b> latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
    c> existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.

    *3. Substance :
    Essence ; in the history of Western philosophy, an entity whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a potentiality from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.

    *3. How does Aristotle define substance?
    Contrary to what was said in the Categories and the Physics, Aristotle seems to say that the term “substance” applies most properly not to a compound of matter and form such as an elephant or a vase, but to the Form {logical pattern] that makes that compound the kind of thing it is.

    *4. Teleodynamics :
    Teleodynamics emerges when multiple self-organizing phenomena generate forms (constraints) that serve as the boundary conditions that make the other self-organizing processes possible, resulting in a spontaneous tendency for the self-generation and self-maintenance of the whole.
    https://teleodynamics.org/

    ↪Wayfarer
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I think [Gnomon's] fundamentally wrong because he has m = matter instead of m = mass, the correct equivalence. — ucarr
    As I said in a post above, it's your interpretation of my analogy that is "wrong". Believe it or not, I do know the difference between measurable Matter & its measurement : Mass. But, for metaphorical purposes, I may use the terms interchangeably, since they refer to the same "stuff".

    Appealing to
    ↪180 Proof
    for an authoritative opinion won't help, because he & I don't speak the same language, so we are not talking about the same things. Besides, his confident credence, and incredulity toward immaterial concepts, are based on his own secular religion of Scientism. And his infallible scriptures are those of Materialism and various other Atheistic alternatives to theistic religions. If you subscribe to those anti-philosophy sources of "facts", you can high-five 180. But, due to a matter-biased (matter over mind) worldview, his assessments of Gnomon's thesis & intentions are completely erroneous.

    For the record, my own worldview is Deistic, which has no scriptures or prescribed practices, just an acknowledgment of the implicit Teleonomy of Evolution, to which Terrence Deacon devoted several chapters in his Incomplete Nature. My own thesis does not claim to be scientific, but it is derived from disruptive discoveries of Quantum & Information theories, that undermine the Materialism & Determinism of 17th century science.

    180 seems to think that philosophy began in the 17th century, and anything prior to that is "woo woo religion". But my philosophical vocabulary goes back to Plato & Aristotle, who did not practice the Greek religions of their time, but whose ideas did influence the theology of the Roman Christian religion. Yet, their rudimentary terminology is still used by philosophers 2500 years later. If you reject the terminology of P & A, you will also misunderstand the words that I use to describe EnFormAction. And, in my thesis, EFA is the hypothetical precursor of Energy and of Life, and of Consciousness, for which materialistic Science has no answer. :smile:


    Deism :
    An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

    Teleonomy :
    What does Deacon add into his teleodynamic that goes beyond teleonomic? He defines his
    teleodynamic as"exhibiting end-directedness" and then adds the highly specific and technical criteria "consequence-organized features constituted by the co-creation, complementary constraint, and reciprocal synergy of two or more strongly coupled morphodynamic processes."
    https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
    Note --- IMHO, Deacon's teleonomy is essentially the same as that of 19th century Deism.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance. — Gnomon
    Here's why I read your examination of Einstein's equation as commentary on the invisibility of m and c2:     — ucarr
    FWIW, the "shapeshifter" analogy was not intended to be a technical analysis of Einstein's equation, but merely borrowing his three elements to represent some of the forms that my hypothetical Generic EFA can transform into. For convenience, I used "Matter" instead of "Mass" to, metaphorically, represent the second element. Please accept that as a figure of speech, not a technical description. Besides, I was not commenting on the "invisibility of m and c2", but characterizing their immateriality. Do you disagree with that portrayal of Energy, Mass & Constant as abstract mathematical concepts, not visible to the physical senses? :cool:

    This is where you're heading with your examination of e=mc2. You seem to be claiming Enformaction is a substance that is the material platform for energy, mass and the velocity of light. — ucarr
    I think you missed the point of my attempt to convey the multi-potent nature of EFA metaphorically. It was an "example", not an "examination". But note that I use the term "substance" as Aristotle & Spinoza did : in reference to the immaterial essence (form ; logical structure) of the object in question. EnFormAction is imagined as a precursor of Energy, not literally the same thing. And it's not a "material platform", but an immaterial essence (potential ; qualia). "Essence" is an ontological idiom, not a scientific term. :nerd:


    Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
    Aristotle turns in Ζ.4 to a consideration of the next candidate for substance : essence. ('Essence' is the standard English translation of Aristotle’s curious phrase to ti ên einai, literally “the what it was to be” for a thing.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

    What's the meaning of Essence?
    essence. noun. es·​sence ˈes-ən(t)s. 1. : the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    That is, consciousness is surprising. If all we knew about were the facts of physics, and even the facts about dynamics and information processing in complex systems, there would be no compelling reason to postulate the existence of conscious experience. If it were not for our direct evidence in the first-person case, the hypothesis would seem unwarranted; almost mystical, perhaps. — Chalmers
    That's a good explanation of the problem.     — Patterner
    Does that explanation imply that the "Hard Problem" is scientifically inscrutable, because the scientific method studies physical sensations from environment (other), not metaphysical experiences from the interior milieu (self)? Feelings are communications from-Self-to-Self, in a secret language. Even so, Philosophers are not deterred by open-ended questions --- we can debate them interminably.

    Animals & Humans & Scientists can send & receive subjective feelings only by translating them into mnemonic gestures & conventional symbols. So, to learn what it feels like to be a sonar-experiencing bat, you would have to trade bodies with the bat, not just words & signs. Objective information is always second-person. But first-person feelings are what distinguish Self from Other.

    According to Shannon, Information communication is always surprising (foreign), but feeling is familar. The barren bits of information in a computer, stripped of meaning, can nevertheless convey normalized significance to a mind, by use of symbols, analogies, & metaphors. But they can't convey the experience of a feeling via such indirect means : you had to be-here-now. :smile:


    Mnemonic : an action that reminds us of something we already know from past experience.
    Note --- For example, mammals display emotions in actions similar to those of humans. So, we can understand, by analogy, what they are feeling, even though we can't directly feel what they are feeling.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    You have described Einstein's equation as an expression of three states of being: a) invisible; b) tangible; c) non-dimensional. On one side of the equation you have the invisible state; on the other side of the equation you have mass and the speed of light as tangible matter. You agree that mass and the speed of light, contrary to your description of e=mc2, possess invisibility. — ucarr
    Actually, I didn't comment on the visibility of Mass & C. But, for the record, all of the equation's elements are imaginary & invisible abstractions. And none of them is tangible Matter, although Mass is a numerical measurement (mentalization) of Matter, a concept, not an object. So, I don't know how you decided that the invisibility of of numerical concepts contradicts my description of Einstein's equation, in which I referred to Matter, not Mass, as "tangible". Does any of that "matter" to you? :joke:

    PS___ One inference from the equation is that invisible Energy can transform into visible & tangible Matter. But we only know Matter (actual) by measuring the "gravity energy weight" of Mass (potential) with our senses. Energy & Mass are both forms of causal EnFormAction, hence Potential Mental (subjective cause) not Actual Material (objective effect). That's a key distinction in the EFA thesis : the mental map is not the material terrain.

    Let me add that, in my view, numbers, like the environment in which they have meaning, are physical. . . . . If numbers are not precisely physical, then they're a good candidate for the bridge between the material and immaterial worlds. — ucarr
    Sorry, I don't follow your definition of "unary". I assumed it was a reference to Unity or Holism. Personally, I would distinguish metaphysical (mental) "numbers" from the physical (material) objects they enumerate. But, as forms of Information, I can agree that numbers could be construed as a "bridge" (link) between the material (real) world, and the immaterial (ideal) world. The link between mental (nominal) number and material (actual) object is symbolic (pointing). :nerd:

    Physical :
    a> relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
    b> relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

    Intangibles offer cold comfort for flesh ‘n blood mortals. — ucarr
    Ironically, our intangible mental images are all we know of the tangible world. Our physical senses translate warm-blooded matter into cold (rational) concepts. Brrr! :smile:

    Can We Know Objective Reality?
    The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object.
    https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Question - Are not both mass and the speed of light invisible? — ucarr
    Yes, both are numbers quantifying qualities (properties). Properties (attributes) are rationally inferrable, but not sensibly visible. Why do you ask? :nerd:

    My notion of unary physicalism, like your EnFormAction, encompasses the four phase states you name and furthermore, I currently speculate it also encompasses mind and consciousness via absential materialism, a label that I use to name Deacon's hierarchy of dynamisms: thermo, morpho and teleo. — ucarr
    I was not familiar with the term "unary", and I still don't how it is different from "Unitary" or "Holism". Unitary may describe a unique system of parts that together can be considered a single Form (morpho). Holism is similar, but focused more on the internal interrelationships that allow the parts to function together as a unit (teleo).

    For my personal philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between "physical" and "material". Material (morpho) typically includes the stuff our senses perceive (what is seems to be), while Physical (thermo) includes the invisible forces & properties that cause a thing to act & react as it does. Please give me a brief definition of "unary physicalism" and "absential materialism". :smile:

    Might it be correct to say your theory encompasses a system that, going forward from antiquity, encompasses both scientific method and ontic grammar. — ucarr
    Please remember that I have no formal training in academic Philosophy. So please tell me how you distinguish between "scientific method" and "ontic grammar". Is the latter unscientific speculation? If so, how does it differ from philosophical speculation or scientific hypothesis? :wink:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Notice that the realist objection to this argument is invariably along the lines that 'the world must exist anyway, regardless of any observing mind'. But say that this statement always includes an implicit perspective even while conceiving of a world in the absence of an observer. Without a perspective or scale, nothing meaningful can be said or thought about what exists. — Wayfarer
    With no background in academic philosophy, I have little depth in the Dualism debate, so I'm just reaching here, not "grasping". My self-acquired quantum physics & information-based worldview seems to require an Idealist foundation ; yet my mundane activities require a Realist belief system. As I have expressed it before : "for all practical (scientific) purposes, I am a Materialist, but for theoretical (philosophical) considerations I am a Mentalist". So, I'm a hybrid animal : an innocent mind in a cartesian demon's lair, so to speak.

    My justification for a Mind-first ontology is based --- not on subtle philosophical deduction --- but on the scientific ubiquity of multiform Information, which includes mathematical Ratios, mental Reasoning, and physical inter-relationships, that include so-called "forces"*1 (gravity, sub-atomic bonds) that we observe as "spooky action at a distance"*2. Causal/Absential Information is common to both matter and mind. Therefore, for completely different reasons I came to the same conclusion as Spinoza : that the essence of the world is not a material substance, but a labelled-yet-undefinable abstract concept : God or Nature . . . or demon?.

    The Realist worldview seems to assume that Matter is the primary onticity*3, and the only kind of thing that exists. This is understandable, because our 5 senses are tuned for detection of non-self objects outside the Mind. But the Idealist presumption is that Mind-itself is the primary kind of being, hence Body/Matter must be dependent upon or emergent from Mind-stuff. So, the Idealist belief requires a Universal Other Mind (God or what?) to provide the "implicit perspective" that somehow creates the "substance/essence" of a real world, for our senses to sense.

    Since several millennia of dualistic debate have not resolved the tension between opposing "implicit" perspectives, why can't we take a lesson from Einstein's Relativity, and conclude that both views may be ultimately true, but the local framing is contingently true? If your frame requires worship, so be it. But my hybrid frame only invites curiosity. :smile:



    *1. Physical Forces : that by which we measure changes in matter
    Consciousness : that by which we know changes in the world

    *2. Do forces actually exist or are they merely mathematical constructions that explain real phenomena?
    Forces are real phenomena that exist in the physical world. In physics, forces are described and understood through mathematical models, but they are not merely mathematical constructions. Forces can be observed and measured, and they have real effects on the motion and interactions of objects in the universe.
    https://www.quora.com/Do-forces-actually-exist-or-are-they-merely-mathematical-constructions-that-explain-real-phenomena
    Note --- Forces are not "observed" by the senses, but inferred by the rational faculty of Mind. The physical effects are real, but the mental knowledge is ideal.

    *3. Onticity : essence of being


    ↪ucarr
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    If non-physicals are showing up you should observe they always can be mapped to a physical brain in location and time. — Mark Nyquist
    Immaterial (abstract) entities (essences), such as Consciousness, only "show-up" when a rational Mind infers*1 an invisible immaterial Function associated with a complex material object (brain). You can't "see" the function with your eyes, only with your rational faculty. The mind-function of a brain exists only as a mental representation of an invisible immaterial process of transforming incoming data (grist for the mill) into meaningful outputs (baked bread).

    So, to equate Mind with Brain is to commit the Map/Territory semantic fallacy*2. A Function*3 is not a material object, but a mathematical & semantic relationship. For example, "computation" is a function of a mechanical computer. But it's also a function of a human "computer"*4. In such cases, the relevant input & output are mathematical concepts, such as numbers. And the physical materials (copper, steel, plastic, proteins, neurons) are irrelevant to the causal calculation*5, they are merely carriers of information, not the content. Mind is what the brain does, not what it is. Matter is merely the vessel (cup), Mind is the wine. :smile:


    *1. An inference is the process of reasoning from what we think is true to what else is true.

    *2. Map–territory relation :
    Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

    *3. What is function and example?
    In particular, a function maps each input to exactly one output.
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-function-in-math-definition-examples.html

    *4. What did it mean to be a human computer?
    Before there were actual computers, they were people. At NASA, women had to do all the math and science calculations for aircraft and space missions. From 1935 to 1942 more women began to work at NACA because many men volunteered to be in the war. The women that worked for NASA were often called "Human Computers".
    https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/amst_humancomp/

    *5. Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and process. Deacon sees constraint as a form of causality which can be generated intrinsically, simply by processes interacting with each other.
    https://somatosphere.com/2014/terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature.html/

    ↪Wayfarer
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I'm not sure about that, but I do know that people use philosophy in this way. I wonder why you have introduced cynicism when nothing I have written is cynical. — Tom Storm
    I apologize. I was merely looking for an alternative to "Pessimistic". And the colloquial usage of Cynical seemed to imply a generally gloomy outlook. The ancient Cynics were merely dispassionate. I didn't mean to label you as a fault-finding person. Merely one who can't smell the flowers among the thorns. :joke:


    What is it called when someone is cynical?
    The words misanthropic and pessimistic are common synonyms of cynical. While all three words mean "deeply distrustful,"

    Why did you drop this question into your response? When did evolution come up? When did progress come up? Are you on a kind of automatic pilot of pedagogical didacticism? — Tom Storm
    Your post seemed to imply that the world was going to hell in a handbasket. So, I thought I'd cheer you up with some more positive news --- on an evolutionary scale --- not breaking news of the latest broken bones & spirits. I don't classify myself as either Pessimistic or Optimistic, but more like a Peptomist. I see the bad stuff peripherally, but I prefer to focus on the good stuff. And I "see" evidence of long-term progress in the world on a cosmic scale, that gives me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. :wink:

    Didactic pedagogy means the procedure of teaching that follows guiding principles in a scientific approach. In other words, is a strategy of presenting knowledge, information, and ideas to students in a structurally organized way.

    Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Holism is one of your main themes?
    What are some specific ways materialism reasons erroneously when arriving at its reductionism?     — ucarr
    Yes, but it has nothing to do with New Age or Eastern religions. As a scientific concept, Holism is now called Systems Theory. Reductionism is appropriate (not erroneous) for scientific applications, such as chemistry, which depends on knowing how single elements affect combinations. For example, carbon typically contributes energetic bonds to compounds, such as coal and carbohydrates. But flammable hydrogen & oxygen combine to produce fire-quenching water H2O. Hence, its holistic properties are different from those of the elements.

    Holism though, is more appropriate for philosophical applications that study complex combinations of elements. The Santa Fe Institute, near Los Alamos, New Mexico studies complex systems, both natural and artificial, to discover their properties & potentialities. The human Mind is an example of an extremely complex biological system that mysteriously gives rise to the non-physical topic of this thread : Consciousness. If you dissect a brain down to sub-atomic particles, you will not find any consciousness, because it is a holistic quality, that emerges only when all the parts are integrated into a multi-level functional system. :smile:

    Systems Theory/Holism :
    A holistic view of a system encompasses the complete, entire view of that system. Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
    https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

    Holism and Reductionism :
    Holism emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of different aspects of behavior, whereas reductionism breaks down behavior into simpler components. Holism considers the context and complexity of human behavior, while reductionism seeks to isolate and study individual components in isolation.
    https://studymind.co.uk/notes/holism-and-reductionism/

    What is an example of Complexity Science?
    For example, the Internet can be represented as a network composed of nodes (computers) and links (direct connections between computers). Other examples of complex networks include social networks, financial institution interdependencies, airline networks, and biological networks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system


    Since you cite this quote from Lund University, I assume it speaks for you. Is it your understanding principles, by definition, are theoretical and therefore subject to revision? . . . . I'm not sure I buy your distinction . . . — ucarr
    No. I know nothing about Lund, beyond the words of the quote. I found that definition on Google, to provide you with an "expert" opinion on "theoretical philosophy", since you seemed to be unaware of the concept. My "distinction" between "theoretical" math and "practical" science is that math deals with abstract (mental) concepts, while science works on concrete (material) objects. For that reason, Math is more like philosophy than chemistry. :nerd:

    Can pure mathematics be considered a branch of philosophy? :
    Pure mathematics can be considered a branch of philosophy in the sense that it deals with fundamental questions about the nature of reality
    https://www.quora.com/Can-pure-mathematics-be-considered-a-branch-of-philosophy


    What’s important for Enformaction is that it not distort the degree to which its multi-mode holism differs from my unary physical holism. The difference is small, not large. The former parallels material/undefined/immaterial whereas the latter subsumes these three categories. — ucarr
    I don't understand your characterization of "multi-mode" vs "unitary". I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance.

    But my thesis goes even further to postulate that several "modes" or phases of unitary EFA are : Energy, Matter, and Mind. I also apply that notion of transformation to the common-but-mysterious physical Phase Transitions, such as plasma-water-steam-ice. In terms of Deacon's triad, EFA serves the causal functions of Thermodynamic, Morpheodynamic, and Teleonomic. Are you familiar with the Holistic concept of Emergence? Will you explain how your "unitary physical holism" works? :smile:

    EnFormAction :
    For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction. . . . As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
    https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

    Holism, reductionism and emergence :
    Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
    The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts [in relation] to a whole [system].
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    My own speculative tendencies wouldn't consider human life to be significant enough to be rated as a 'growing awareness'. Perhaps a growing malignancy if we consider pollution and climate change. — Tom Storm
    Sorry to hear that gloomy outlook. It seems to focus on the small percentage of bad stuff that the media calls "news" : "if it bleeds, it leads". I would hope that philosophers could ignore the gory headlines to see the 98% of good stuff that goes un-reported. Ironically, some people seem to think that cynicism makes you appear smarter than the happy-go-lucky sheep.

    Like the horizon, Utopia is always somewhere off in the future, and recedes as fast as we approach. But the confidence that we can get closer is what drives the change-agents in the world. For example, catalytic entrepreneur Elon Musk is afraid of a Matrix-like takeover by AI machines, and possible eradication of meat people. But he retains a positive outlook, that humans will survive, and perhaps prevail, by adapting, even by emigrating to Mars. That dynamic of bad now vs good future seems to be what drives him to be such a technological innovator.

    Throughout the centuries, philosophers have been acutely aware of the bad stuff, but stoically focused on making it better, incrementally, bit by bit. Biological evolution takes eons to make significant improvements in the status quo. And social improvement does not advance nearly as fast as technological progression. But that's only because society consists of conflict-of-interest people, not cog & wheel machines. A philosophy of Optimism may not be justified, but Pragmatism works. :smile:


    Why do so many people believe that cynicism is a sign of intelligence?
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/the-myth-the-cynical-genius

    Evolutionary Progress?
    How could anyone who accepts an evolutionary view of life deny that progress has occurred?
    https://watermark.silverchair.com/50-5-451.pdf
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Why specifically the formulation of growing self-awareness? — Tom Storm
    If the material universe popped into existence with a "bang", can we imagine that, like a planted seed, it came pre-set with un-realized Potentials that took eons to mature (actualize) into the complex cosmos we humans are now scanning with our far-seeing technological eye-extensions? The Webb space-scope is said to be looking back to the beginning of the universe, even as it reflects our insignificance to the near-infinite bubble of being that was born in a Planck-scale bit of possibility.

    Was "awareness" a property or quality of the nascent cosmos? If not, how did sentience & consciousness emerge from an explosion of space & time & matter & energy? Is it not reasonable to say that there is a "growing awareness" or that the "cosmos has, eventually become aware of itself", only in the last few millennia of evolution? Is it possible that Awareness evolved, along with Life and Mind, from an insentient & lifeless state of fecund oblivion?

    Of course, such poetic imagery is forbidden for pragmatic science, but is a bit of creative license allowed on a philosophy forum? :smile:


    Oblivion : the state of being unaware or unconscious of what is happening.

    ↪Wayfarer
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
    I'm fine with that.     — Relativist
    I suspect that --- for fear of straying into the seductive mindset of spooky Spirituality --- those who espouse the metaphysical doctrine of Materialism dare not use their imaginative faculty (Reason) to infer intangible invisible subjective abstractions, that exist only in the matterless, and unverifiable, realm of Ideas, Concepts, Thoughts & Fantasies.

    However, as an amateur philosopher, with no job or tenure to project, I feel free to follow the evidence of inference wherever it leads ; yea, unto the shadow of Religion, that enthralls the "weak" minds of millions around the world. Gods & ghosts are indeed "immaterial objects". But so are Logic & Math & Reason itself ; "reified" as Abstract Nouns : "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object". Such as Love, Beauty, Honesty, Democracy, and yes Consciousness.

    All of those immaterial concepts are held dearly by some people, despite their immateriality, and the implication of some kind of parallel existence in a Platonic realm. So, I ask myself : am I one of those gullible "anti-realists", who can't discern the difference between an abstraction and an actuality? Are you "fine" with that kind of subjective imagination? Some on this forum are appalled at the conceit that immaterial abstractions could exist in a material world. :wink:

    ↪Wayfarer
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    You talk of weaving together the disjunctions of science and philosophy; can you name a specific problem that Enformaction is attacking? — ucarr
    Historically, modern Science emerged from the traditions of ancient Philosophy. But in the interim, Religion claimed authority over both. When the Enlightenment gave birth to Empirical Science, it threw-out the philosophical baby with the bath-water. The Materialism and Scientism found on this forum are the off-spring of that "disjunction" between Ideal & Real worldviews. EFA is, in part, an attempt to heal the rift between the science of Matter, and the science of Mind. :smile:

    Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science
    Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist)

    You say math is theoretical; some components of pure math are theoretical; to claim math in general is theoretical is, to my thinking, like saying language in general is theoretical. — ucarr
    Both Math and Language are theoretical in conception (principles), but practical in application (details). :nerd:

    Theoretical Philosophy is the study of the principles for human knowledge, the development of the sciences and the basis for scientific knowledge, the principles of thought, argumentation and communication, metaphysics and the history of the subject itself.
    https://www.fil.lu.se/en/department/subjects-at-the-department/theoretical-philosophy/


    You talk of disciplines both empirical and theoretical inhabiting one, universal substance. Such language, contrary to your arguments toward establishing an immaterial ground for existence (it from bit), suggest a largely unexamined, foundational belief existence is grounded within the material (I know, the merger is intentional, that is, during those moments when it strikes your fancy). — ucarr
    The "substance" I was referring to is essential, not material. In my thesis, that "substance" is identified with Generic Information, as implied by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophically influential "it from bit" postulation, which has been refined & expanded in recent years by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute. From that perspective, existence is "grounded" in dynamic Potential, not inert Dirt. :chin:

    Substance Monism. The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
    https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

    You turn the rapier point around to me when you endorse both_and over either_or. My retort is to declare "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." — ucarr
    A bird in hand is an actuality ; birds in a bush are merely possibilities. Science studies actuality ; Philosophy studies possibilities. My BothAnd philosophy combines dual aspects of the world : the here & now materiality, and the future & past ideality : not yet real or no longer real. The point being that Either/Or is reductive & eliminative, while BothAnd is holistic & constructive. :wink:


    I know that materialism rendered a holy of holies becomes a death trap. At the other end of the spectrum, skittering around, spewing glib, scientific catchphrases scintillating with the current cachet in smartypants verbiage becomes another death trap. — ucarr
    Is that your disdainful view of philosophical speculation? :cool:
    .
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
    I'm fine with that.     — Relativist
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    For the very simple reason that if numbers are real, but not material, then there are real things that are not material. The intellectual contortions that modern philosophers perform to avoid this conclusion are striking. That SciAm article you linked - very good article - says:
    there are some important objections to (platonic) realism. If mathematical objects really exist, their properties are certainly very peculiar.     — Wayfarer
    Coincidentally, I was just this morning skimming Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, which discusses the causal "Absences" (possibilities ; potentials) in the world. The term "Platonic Realism" caught my roving eye, because I had always associated Mr. P with Idealism. So, I looked it up. Apparently, it's a middle position between Subjective Idealism and Objective Realism.

    Cosmology & anthropology tell us that the physical/material Universe existed for billions of Earth-years before subjective/reflective minds emerged, to "see" what can't be seen. So, matter/energy existed objectively before anyone was capable of abstracting physical stuff into mental ideas. Hence, Subjective Idealism would only make sense if "god is always around in the quad" to be the subjective observer/imaginer sustaining the world-idea.

    Of course, that notion will not fly for Atheist/Materialists. But from the agnostic position of the Enformationism thesis, the hypothetical Enformer/Programmer/Creator fills the role of sustainer, by creating an evolutionary algorithm, which encodes the programmer's intentions into the Laws/Norms of Nature. One set of those natural "laws" would be the Logic of Physics, which we abstracting creatures interpret as Mathematics. Those mathematical "laws" are ideal/mental, but independent of late-emerging human observers.

    Deacon's "Absences" may be construed as the Programmer's intentions, that those of us inside the program infer as invisible "Causes" & Potentials" in the real world. Which are also the invisible logical "Structure" of the physical world, that scientists & mathematicians infer, but cannot see. Of course, these speculations are just philosophical metaphors for thinking about the immaterial aspects of Reality that we call Ideas, Laws, Logic, Cause & such. Such notions are real only in the sense of Platonic Realism : "real but not material". :smile:


    Platonic Realism :
    In other words, reality exists independent of anyone's perception or reasoning. Objects are in existence regardless of someone's observations of that object. In contrast to realism,subjective idealism argues that only minds exist because everything depends on the mind (the subjective perceiver).
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/platonic-idealism-plato-and-his-influence.html

    Platonic realism is the philosophical position that there are abstract objects, such as numbers, ideas, and mathematical objects, that exist independently of the physical world.
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-platonic-idealism-and-platonic-realism
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Well, you will have an issue accounting for the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences' (Eugene Wigner). — Wayfarer
    Not really. There are mathematical relations between the things that exist. These relations don't exist independently of the things that exhibit them. Simple example: two-ness is a property that groups of 2 have, but groups of 3 of 4 lack. This fact doesn't depend on "2" existing in a 3rd realm.     — Relativist
    FWIW, I think of Mathematics, and "mathematical relations" as mental abstractions from observation of the arrangment and dynamics of the world. For me, Math is the logical (immaterial) structure of reality. Mental Relations do exist apart from Material Objects, in the sense that Ideas are categorically distinct from the things they portray.

    For example, a structural engineer is able to "see" (imagine) the invisible logical relations, and to convert them into a freebody diagram, where the arrows represent invisible forces, and the lines represent not-yet-real material beams capable of supporting those forces. It's a diagram of "things that exist" ideally, but the relationships diagrammed (represented) are mental noumena, which exist only in a conscious rational mind. In the real world you don't see those imaginary lines & arrows, because relations are metaphysical, not physical. Representations are not real, they are Ideal. Do you "see" what I mean? :smile:

    Is the Mathematical World Real?
    Philosophers cannot agree on whether mathematical objects exist or are pure fictions
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-mathematical-world-real/

    A mental representation can be caused by something it does not represent, and can represent something that has not caused it,
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/

    1_lecture14_pic3.gif

    6943278.jpg?669

    ↪Wayfarer
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    In my case, my occupation deals with a lot of material objects such as moving a mass from point A to point B, machine operation, operating in dangerous environments, bad weather, physical environments that are not controlled,...that sort of thing. Since my personal approach to consciousness and the material environment affects my safety I might naturally have a more materialist view than someone coming from a historical or academic view. — Mark Nyquist
    As an Architect, my occupation involves interpreting the client's ideas & dreams into a mathematical & graphic design language that can be erected into material structures, which not only ward-off environmental dangers (tornadoes, earthquakes), but provide sentimental satisfaction of those expressed needs & desires. So, you can see why I might be more open to immaterial concepts than a manual laborer. :smile:

    Note --- As I have frequently clarified : for practical matters, I am a materialist, dealing with things. But for theoretical topics, I am a philosopher, dealing with ideas.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    ↪Gnomon
    You're close. I used "reification" to refer to the treatment of an abstraction as a thing, where thing is something that exists (i.e. it is ontic; part of the ontological furniture of the world).

    I don't think abstractions are ontic. I reject platonism, which treats ideal forms as ontic. It's still fine to talk about them figuratively as things, but it's unclear to me if you're talking figuratively or literally. Please clarify, because this thread is about the "hard problem" -which is only a problem for materialism. If your solution is to assume the existence of the immaterial, please state this.     — Relativist
    Yes. What you are labeling "reification", I would call an Abstract Noun. I assume that the referent of the term Consciousness is not an observable material object, but a rational inference. It does not point to a physical thing, but to a holistic behavior that we call Thinking & Reasoning. The word is an Abstract Noun, "denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object". Would you classify Consciousness as "immaterial"? Is the denotation "figurative" or "literal"? You tell me. :smile:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    You beg off from the arduous path of scientific rigor by drawing a hard boundary around your philosophical postulations, and yet all of them seem to be funded by the theories and experimental verifications of materialistic science. If your philosophy were authentically divested from rational materialism, I think it would be almost barren. Given this situation, it's clear to me you'd benefit greatly by investing more time in study of science with rigor, whether reductive or not. — ucarr
    I do take exemption from the empirical requirements of scientific rigor, when I'm discussing a topic that has no objective empirical evidence. I would like to assume that the different methodologies*1 would go without saying on The Philosophy Forum ; but Materialism/Physicalism seems to be the default metaphysics for many posters.

    If the topic of this thread was Neurology, I would indeed feel the need to justify my arguments with empirical data. However, the kernel of my thesis was a scientist's interpretation of quirky Quantum Physics, and computerized Information science : "it from bit" : material things are derived from immaterial information*2. So, yes, my thesis is fundamentally "funded" by Science, yet not the "materialistic" type, but the theoretical philosophical type. That's because Consciousness is subjective, not objective*3.

    The Enformationism thesis is not entirely "divested" from materialism, anymore than Quantum Physics is completely separate from Macro Physics. But quantum-scale matter is more mathematical (wave function) than material (particle). And the "evidence" for quantum behavior is much more open to philosophical interpretation than for full-scale chemistry. So, the math adds some "rigor" to the science of invisible & intangible "things"*5. But, a century later, quantum physics remains more philosophical than empirical. And some physicists interpret the Copenhagen Interpretation to imply that Consciousness might be related to quantum phenomena.

    If you are really interested in the Science underlying the Enformationism thesis, invest some time in reviewing the website and the blogs. But remember that the thesis is not scientific, and I am not a scientist. Also, the professional scientists I quote, feel free to depart from the rigors of materialistic science, when they are extrapolating from hard evidence to philosophical speculation. Besides Wheeler*3, I follow several other physicists*4 who venture off the reservation in search of philosophical understanding of subjective concepts, such as Consciousness. :smile:


    *1. The Difference Between Philosophy and Science :
    The difference lies in the method of explanation. While philosophy uses philosophical arguments and philosophical principles, science makes use of empirical data and objective evidence. Science uses empirical data to validate its theories. It takes the answers of experiment and proves them to be right or wrong.
    https://www.ponderingphilosopher.com/the-difference-between-philosophy-and-science/

    *2. John Archibald Wheeler's "It from Bit" theory is a philosophical idea that suggests that all physical reality, including spacetime itself, is ultimately derived from information. According to this concept, fundamental reality is not composed of particles or fields, but rather information. In this theory, Wheeler suggests that information is primary, and the material world emerges from the interactions and processing of information.
    https://www.quora.com/According-to-John-Wheelers-it-from-bit-theory-can-information-exist-outside-of-spacetime-Can-information-cause-something-without-completely-no-energy-in-it-from-bit-theory
    Note --- Information processing is energetic in the sense of causing physical transformations.

    *3. Information Theory and Consciousness :
    Consciousness is a subjectively experienced phenomenon that cannot be doubted, as Descartes famously observed.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2021.641239/full#h2
    Note --- The Santa Fe Institute for the Study of Complexity is a scientific endeavor, but its subject-non-matter, Complexity, is not a material object ; it is instead a generalized concept referring to the holistic interrelationships of many things. Randomness and Non-linearity tend to water-down the rigor of a science studying res cogitans.
    "Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, leading to non-linearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence". ___Wikipedia

    *4. Physicist Paul Davies :
    Paul Davies begins with the claim that our ability to understand nature through the scientific method is a fact which demands an explanation. He proposes that our mind and the cosmos are linked, that consciousness “is a fundamental and integral part of the outworking of the laws of nature.” . . . . Still the ultimate explanation of the origin of the laws lies outside the scope of science and should be pursued by metaphysics and theology.”
    https://counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/davie1-body.html

    *5. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE FOR SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES
    not a photograph, but an artist's interpretation of paths followed by unseen particles
    Atom%20smashing.webp
    Note --- the path provides mathematical information for a conscious observer to interpret
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Reification means ‘to treat as a thing’. It is from the root ‘re-‘ (from which ‘reality’ is also derived), and which Descartes employed in his ‘res cogitans’, and by virtue of which he has been accused of reifying mind (justly, in my view). But as per my question above, I say that one may regard numbers and logical conventions as real without reifying them as things. — Wayfarer
    Yes. Apparently
    ↪Relativist
    is reading Reification into what I call Ideality (the state or quality of being ideal). Ironically the "res" in res cogitans is usually translated as "thing". Although non-specific, "thing" seems to imply physical object or sensory phenomenon. So I struggle to find language that doesn't sound like Reification. How do you deal with the problem of communicating immaterial-but-non-spiritual philosophical concepts in a materialist language? :smile:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    If you're claiming mental activity entails the existence of immaterial objects I'd regard that as a reification- treating an abstraction as something ontic. — Relativist
    For the record, I'm not claiming that mental activity is a real thing (ontic), but an ideal concept (noumena). Brain processes are real & physical, but mental activities are ideal & metaphysical. Science deals with Reality and Objects, but Philosophy deals with Ideality and Subjects. The ontological being of Mind is essential, not material. You can't examine Intellect under a microscope, but you can study Reason with reasoning.

    However, if you don't pay close attention, the materialistic presumptions of our common language may give you the impression that metaphysical noumena are physical phenonomena. :smile:


    Aristotle describes Mind (nous, often also rendered as “intellect” or “reason”) as “the part of the soul by which it knows and understands”
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Therefore, regarding the Both/And Principle, my first thought is that this is a redundancy. — ucarr
    Yes, both "Both" and "And" are conjunctions, so the redundancy is intentional for emphasis. But BothAnd joins the two into a single holistic concept, which is in opposition to the common Either/Or presumptions of Reductionism. :smile:
    PS___ I appreciate your constructive skepticism. Too much criticism on this forum is couched in destructive cynicism.

    I join Relativist in posing this question to you. Also, I will attempt to reenforce his supposition about mind being matter-based by claiming that any phenomenon with time duration is physical because spacetime is a physical medium. Thoughts, possessing time duration, are therefore physical. — ucarr
    No, I don't think that the brain-function we call "Mind", or the body-function "Life", exist outside space-time. Both are simply concepts that exist in the unreal realm of Ideas. You can't put them under a microscope, but you can analyze them philosophically. Also, I don't deny that both of those immaterial functions evolved from material predecessors. They are references to "absences"*1 in Terrence Deacon's notion of "aboutness". And, like most philosophical speculations, they can't be understood from a space-time Materialist/Physicalist perspective.

    I define "Mind & Life" in meta-physical*2 terms for two reasons : a> to distinguish my Information-based holistic worldview from matter-based Materialism and reductive Science. And b> to force us to trace the evolution of Matter & Mind back to the beginning of the space-time world, which (per BB theory) suddenly appeared from no-where & no-thing & no-time. A century after the Big Bang hypothesis, cosmologists still debate what existed "before" the physical bang. My proposal is metaphysical Causation (EnFormAction ; primordial Energy ; creative Power) and Entention*3 (goal-directed program for evolution)*4. All current cosmologies presume that Energy (cause) & Law (order) pre-existed the Bang.

    In my information-based thesis, the source of our Reality was something like Plato's timeless Ideality, consisting of Infinite Potential (FORM) which is not-yet-real and not-yet-existing. What you call "mind being matter-based" is a banal truism. What I call "Mind" (capital M) is a philosophical postulation, based on physicist Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture. Both posits go beyond the space-time boundaries of Science, into the unbounded possibilities of Philosophical speculation. Enformationism is a modern update of ancient Panpsychism, similar to Radical Empiricism & Neutral Monism. They build-upon, but go beyond, the facts of physical Science. :nerd:

    *1. Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
    Constitutive absence :A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
    https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

    *2. Meta-physics :
    The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

    *3. Entention : Deacon Incomplete Nature
    Special spelling of "intention" : purpose ; direction
    Aboutness : aiming toward some external or future state

    *4. Do you think evolution from chaotic plasma to intelligent ucarr happened by accident? Accidents are destructive of order. Design is constructive of organization. Do you think Evolution could work like a computer program, to compute something unknown (the missing answer) from something known (the initial state)? Design and Entention are no-nos for empirical Science, but not for theoretical Philosophy. What we are talking about on this thread is not rocket science, but the Intelligence that leads toward rockets to Mars.


    I don't agree, however, that the concrete/abstract debate parallels the mind/body debate. The former is non-controversial, the latter anything but. — ucarr
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The "parallels" are philosophical analogies, and have no basis in materialistic Science. Do you consider yourself to be a devout Materialist? If so, why are you posting on a free-thinking Philosophy Forum? :cool:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    This is why I refer to "mental activities" rather then "the mind". We should be able to agree that mental activities occur. Mental activities are...activities, like running (actions are not "entities"), so I disagree with imposing an inherent reification. — Relativist
    I don't know where you got "reification", but I refer to the Mind as the Function of the Brain. Both are aspects of heterogeneous (diverse) Reality, but only the brain is a material object. Mind is an abstract immaterial process, closer to Energy than Matter. I make that distinction because Mind is not an empirical thing to be analyzed by Science, but an immaterial activity to be studied holistically by Philosophy . . . or by Psychology, which is mostly philosophical. :smile:


    Why psychology isn’t science
    Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html

    In physics, energy is an abstract, non-material quantity associated with the state of a system.
    file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/PERC02_Loverude.pdf
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    To me this sounds like a description of stored energy and, therefore, I say in response: Where there's energy there's material and thus your attempt to occupy ambiguous position between material/immaterial is false. Your Enformaction, like Deacon's constitutive absence, stands squarely within the material world. — ucarr
    My thesis of EnFormAction does exist "within the material world", because the observer lives in the world of tangible material objects and invisible physical forces. But I think your interpretation of the thesis is influenced by the materialistic nature of the English language*1. That's why our dialogs on the Philosophy Forum are so often fraught with harsh put-downs, when we fail to communicate on both levels. Some posters attempt to express philosophical concepts in concrete scientific language, while others use more abstract expressions when discussing topics like "Consciousness". That inherent ambiguity limits our ability to communicate, unless we understand that both Concretions and Abstractions exist side-by-side in the Real/Ideal world.

    Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that our objective world is Matter-based, and that our subjective realm is Mind-based. So, I can agree with you, that the technical term EnFormAction is a brain-state in the material world. But it is also a concept in & about the ideal realm of Mind. :smile:

    *1. Language is too material!
    language is infused with materiality and should not therefore be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-017-9540-0

    *2. The BothAnd Principle :
    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


    Today, while perusing Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, I came across a philosophical term that I hadn't noticed in previous readings : Neutral Monism*3. Serendipitously, it happens to be pertinent to both this Consciousness thread, and to the BothAnd concept. It assumes that both Mind & Matter emerge from a single more fundamental root or cause. Both Particulars (material objects) and Relations (ideas about associations between things) exist in our Material/Immaterial world. So, William James coined the term Radical Empiricism*4 to include both empirical Things and theoretical Ideas under the purview of Philosophy.

    In 500BC, Plato called that original Source or Essence : Form & First Cause. In the 17th century, Spinoza called that Single Substance deus sive natura. But in the 21st century, my thesis calls it EnFormAction, a contraction of Energy (causation) & Information (organization). EFA is neither Matter nor Mind, but it creates both of those sub-forms as distinctive aspects of the Real world. Moreover, the philosophical perspective of Radical Empiricism seems to be a BothAnd acknowledgement of the apparent Duality of reality, even as it postulates a Monistic origin of all things & ideas in our diverse multiform world. :nerd:

    *3. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
    Neutral monism has gained prominence as a potential solution to theoretical issues within the philosophy of mind, specifically the mind–body problem and the hard problem of consciousness.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

    *4. Radical Empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

    The disjunction: science or philosophy, with respect to consciousness studies, runs parallel to the disjunction: physics or math, with respect to Relativity. Anyone operating within either of these two disciplines who aligns with either of these disjunctions assumes position to play the part of the fool. — ucarr
    The point of my thesis is to provide a conjunction (BothAnd) that weaves together the disjunctions of Science and Philosophy. For example, Physics is empirical, but Math is theoretical; yet both exist in the same world as different forms of the same universal substance. So, I can agree that those who "align with either", to the exclusion of the other, is playing the fool. Watch your step! :joke:

    500x500.jpg
  • The Great Controversy
    :gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that? — Athena
    I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.

    Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I'm still on the energy-consciouness relation.
    Our brains use 20 percent of our bodies total energy. In terms of power it's about as much as a 10 watt light bulb. So we should suspect consciousness is energy driven. I don't think that's the end of it though. Once we have functioning consciousness the subject matter can drive physical matter.     — Mark Nyquist
    In my thesis, there is indeed a close relationship between Energy and Consciousness. Both are emergent forms of a cosmic predecessor that I call EnFormAction. But each sub-form has its own characteristic properties. Energy is physical causation, but no material properties. Instead, in my hypothesis, tangible Matter --- mathematically defined in terms of Mass --- is what happens to Energy when the speed of Light slows down enough for a phase change (to Mass) to occur (E=MC^2). So, Light & Matter & Mind are different phases of the same Universal Substance (essence), to which I apply the modern term "Information", but translate into EnFormAction : the creative act of enforming (i.e. transformation or causation).

    If you can accept that far-out philosophical posit, then yes : "Consciousness is energy driven". Yet again, in my thesis --- not in standard physics --- both C & E are forms of Generic Information : the universal metaphysical power (potential) for form change. Pre-Big Bang, the unknown "nothing" from which our "something" physical universe suddenly popped into existence was simply Eternal Potential. That's equivalent to Plato's Logos/Form, and to Aristotle's Prime Mover.

    But the heat given-off by a hard-thinking brain is more closely related to the work of pushing electrons & calcium around in the neural net, than to processing massless immaterial thoughts. Conscious Awareness doesn't radiate like a light bulb . . . . except perhaps as a graphic metaphor. :smile:


    No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A ‘Universe Before The Big Bang’
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=16ddef047a0f

    Does the human brain get hotter when thinking?
    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-human-brain-get-hotter-when-thinking

    52210890-brain-in-light-bulb-creative-thinking-or-idea-conceptual-icon.jpg
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below) — ucarr
    The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.

    From our perspective, looking backward at Evolution, from Bang to Now, Mind does appear to be emergent from Matter. But, if you look closely at the beginning, as described by Big Bang theory, there was no Matter in the modern sense, but something more akin to a Quantum state. Moreover, the initial Singularity, preceding the physical Bang*2, is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is undefined due to infinities. For my thesis, I interpret that not-yet-real state (infinite Potential) as functioning like a computer program, with an evolutionary algorithm (instructions for development), and with the information processing power (creative Energy) to compute a universe from raw data. But first, the Singularity has to create a physical computer to run the evolutionary program. You can think of it in terms of instantaneous Inflation*2 (something from nothing-but-potential), if you prefer that to a magical Voila! ("here it is").

    Since I imagine Evolution as-if a computer is processing Information (encoded data) according to natural (mathematical) laws*3, it creates "candidate solutions" to partial problems in sequence, for selection conforming to functional criteria. The early (hot & dense) universe was the raw (quantum) material for further development into Atoms & Molecules ; the first real matter. Each subsequent phase of emergence produces novel forms, never before seen in the world : e.g. stars create new forms of matter. such as iron. After further processing, a non-physical Function emerges : Life -- animated matter ; single cells. Next, those organisms develop another novelty : Brains -- material central processors of information ; control systems. And eventually, those Brains produced a new function : Mind -- with awareness of relationship of Self to Environment.

    So, that's an abbreviated summary of how I see Mind emerging from Matter, which emerged from Math (abstract information). As I get time, I may address some of your other mis-understandings. :smile:

    *1. What did Aristotle argue in his metaphysics?
    He argues that the study of being qua being, or First Philosophy, is superior to all the other theoretical sciences because it is concerned with the ultimate causes of all reality, not just the secondary causes of a part of reality.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)

    *2. Cosmic Inflation :
    The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all. Instead, that honor goes to cosmic inflation, and everyone should understand why.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=3b5c4c044153

    *3. Evolutionary computation :
    In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
    Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.

    Of course, that Copenhagen Interpretation is still debatable, but the before/after states are about as empirical as it gets on the quantum scale of physics. It's the in-between state (the causal factor) that remains a philosophical conjecture after all these years. But then, mundane-but-instantaneous Phase Transitions, such as water-to-ice, are not yet explicable in terms of step-by-step physical processes. The lack of a slam-dunk physical explanation does not stop us from intentionally manipulating the mysterious Phase Change phenomenon in our technology*3.

    One example of Mind over Matter that I have used in the past is to point-out a common feature of modern civilization : abstract ideas implemented in the concrete world. For example, in the early oughties, Elon Musk had some far-out concepts : a> provide transportation to Mars, and b> transform automobiles from gas-guzzlers to electron-zappers. They said it couldn't be done, but only a few decades later we have both Space-X and Tesla. Without his immaterial Ideas and non-thermodynamic Will-power, those things would not have happened naturally. So, there must have been some other kind of Causal Force, working behind the scenes to make it happen. In my thesis, I call it "Causal Information".

    Admittedly, this is not a scientific explanation. But then, materialistic Science has no better way to describe how physical rocket ships and electric cars could become manifestations of something as aethereal as a felt need, that Terrence Deacon called "Absential Causality" or "Constitutive Absence"*4. Do you agree that such "ententional phenomena" would never evolve in the absence of human minds? :smile:

    *1. Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?
    What causal effects does consciousness have on physical matter?
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

    *2. The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the spontaneous reduction of only one final observer. The experiment should be described from this observer's perspective. The reduction, like the velocity of the system, depends on the choice of the final observation system.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/copenhagen-interpretation
    Note --- Is it the Observer's mental measure or the instrument's physical intervention that "causes" the change of state?

    *3. Air Conditioning :
    Phase Change Technology utilizes the Latent Heat of Vaporization of a working fluid to absorb thermal energy during the evaporator cycle and release this energy during the condenser cycle.
    https://norenthermal.com/resources/phase-change-technology/?lang=en
    Note --- Latent ˈ: existing in hidden or dormant form.

    *4.a Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things,it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence.
    *4.b Constitutive absence :A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
    https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
    Note --- Deacon spells his neologism for purposeful behavior, ententional with an "E"
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
    Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.

    Some scientists regard Mind-stuff (what I call "information") as more fundamental than Matter-stuff. For now, here's a quote from a neuroscientist*1, who seems to lean toward Panpsychism, which is not my personal position. Meanwhile, I'll look through my extensive body of work to see if I have directly addressed your question in past philosophical musings, as a side topic. However, I doubt that there is any slam-dunk science on the question*2. :smile:

    PS___See my next post for a philosophical postulation.


    *1. Mind over Matter :
    "Now the materialists say that conscious experience has no effect on matter. Therefore it can’t influence behavior. Therefore it can’t increase survival or ‘thrival’ of the organism. Therefore conscious experience confers no evolutionary advantage, according to narrow materialists!
    Which means what? Consciousness can’t have evolved. Conscious experience must have come into being by the most extraordinary accident ever!!! But this ‘miraculous accident’ explanation is a complete contradiction to the whole methodological thrust of materialism!"
    ___Nicholas Rosseinsky, Neuroscientist
    https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page27.html

    *2. A quantum case of mind over matter?
    New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
    https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum-case-of-mind-over-matter/

    main-qimg-4d0d6a348fff9503293e2cfbc20f0e63-lq
  • Meaning of Life
    I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. . . . . My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent. — Tom Storm
    Generalizations are abstractions from immediate reality (opinions ; beliefs), and shouldn't be "pushed" into the realm of "accurate" empirical Facts. However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations.

    For example, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. Hence, self-denial & self-sacrifice are sometimes deemed necessary expressions of dedicated Faith. That's why people acting-out an "intense relationship" can be scary to those of us who are more selfish, and less devoted to an imaginary deity : e.g. suicide bombers. Besides, I suspect that some of those sacrificial "volunteers" may be more committed to their faith community than to their Allah. Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. But that's just a guess. :wink:
  • Meaning of Life
    Meaning of Life
    So, what does this mean? — George Fisher

    The "Meaning of Life” in general is a perennial quest for Philosophers and Theologians. Scientists though have no need for universal meaning, and only search for the significance of particular things.

    Most western religions claim to have the answer direct from the meaning-giver. And that is : loyal subjects are expected to serve their heavenly Master, as serfs & slaves & sycophants grovel before their feudal Lord, in return for protection from external threats, such as devils, demons, & witches. When the Lord is viewed as a king, individuals have no meaning apart from their role in communal service to the realm. Those pawns who don't passively submit to domination may be banished from the fiefdom.

    But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization".

    When each person is left to create his own justification for taking-up space & resources in the world, the value of his life is not set by heavenly standards, but by more naturalistic or humanistic criteria. It may be simply to accomplish some special ambition, or to seek the vague feeling of self-fulfillment. The defining context may be our relationship to mankind, or to the whole universe; as our role in society, or as a cog in the great machine of the Cosmos. The subjective meaning of each life is more often measured simply in terms of happiness or satisfaction with the person’s role and status in the community. There seems to be as many personal meanings as there are lives in this world

    The Meanings of Life
    https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness. — Art48
    I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.

    A. BK approaches the Science vs Philosophy controversy from a position of Analytic Idealism*1. "AI" (pardon the unintentional sentient-computer implication) sounds like a succinct description of Modern (post-17th century) philosophy : forced --- by the successes of physical science --- to focus primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Nature : e.g. Ideas ; Self-Consciousness. It accepts the material facts provided by modern physics, but interprets (analyzes) the data as it applies to the immaterial functions (conceptualization ; semiotics) of the human brain.

    B. BK says that modern Science "began attributing fundamental reality only to quantities". Then, "we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map." And notes that "we now face the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" : the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities." So, he concludes that we "managed to lose touch with reality altogether".
    Note --- "Reality" as a whole system, including both Mind & Matter.

    C> He defines Analytic Idealism as "the notion that reality . . . . is fundamentally qualitative." Thus denying the basic principle of Materialism. Idealism views the world through the lens of subjective Consciousness, while Materialism views it through the lens of objective Technology.
    Note --- Qualia :the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Hence, Reality converted to Ideality via physical senses, and metaphysical symbol synthesis.

    D> BK says that "Panpsychism ultimately implies universal consciousness". But then he dismisses that theory as "a halfway compromise between materialism and idealism". Instead, BK seems to favor full-on Idealism, devoid of the contamination of Physicalism. Paradoxically, it's difficult to even talk about metaphysical topics without getting entangled with the physicality embedded in common languages.
    Note --- Kastrup wrote "Why Panpsychism is Baloney", perhaps to complement his book Why Materialism is Baloney. https://iai.tv/articles/bernardo-kastrup-why-panpsychism-is-baloney-auid-2214

    Comments :
    We humans are only able to communicate the Qualia of our sensory Experience by asking : "do you see what I see?". The response must be translated from private Ideas into public Words, by following the rules of conventional language. Yet, that's where the Hard Problem begins. Our public language is necessarily built upon the material foundation of our common human sensory apparatus, that we share with apes. Even apes, such as Koko, seem to be able to communicate feelings/ideas in sign language, which can only express abstract concepts in concrete gestures. Yet, the implication that ape sentience is comparable to human consciousness has been criticized as anthropomorphic interpretation*2.

    The Science-based metaphysics of Materialism is supposed to be dealing directly with physical Reality. But, since the subject "matter" is immaterial, BK says their arguments are based on hypothetical conjectures (maps), not empirical (territory) observations. So, their boo-hiss criticism of Consciousness queries on this forum, is a case of the pot calling the kettle a "woo-monger". Consciousness is inherently subjective, hence not objectifiable under a microscope.

    My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe.

    I may have more to say about Science Ideated later, after I finish the book. This is just a taste, to give us some ideas to argue about in a thread on Consciousness in a material world. :smile:


    *1. Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell :
    While being a realist, naturalist, rationalist, and even reductionist view, Analytic Idealism flips our culture-bound intuitions on their head, revealing that only through understanding our own inner nature can we understand the nature of the world.
    https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff-books/our-books/analytic-idealism-nutshell

    *2. Koko the Impostor :
    The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
    https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/

    *3. Both/And Principle :
    My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . 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, as you re-frame the question.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

    ↪Mark Nyquist

    ↪Alkis Piskas

    ↪ucarr
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:

    EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon

    You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories).     — ucarr
    I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.

    In my thesis, Mind & Matter are "parallel" in the sense that they are both descendant forms of Generic Information (EFA) that exist side-by-side in the real/ideal world. But they are separate categories, in that Mind is an an emergent quality separated from the Matter-only state by billions of years of evolution. So, qualitatively Mind & Matter are completely different kinds of thing/entity : metaphysical vs physical. Likewise, Ideas exist in the "Real" world, but are qualitatively different. Ironically, Materialists define "Ideal" as un-real ; denying the reality of their own immaterial concepts.

    It's hard to make such philosophical distinctions, due to the basic materialism of the language : e.g. "thing" typically designates a material object, whereas "entity" is a more philosophical term. The materialism embedded in our common language only becomes a problem when we try to convey ideas that are not objective things : e.g. Consciousness. :smile:


    Thing vs Entity :
    An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

    Mind/Body Problem :
    Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical (causation) Information instead of physical (consequence) Matter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

    'Cause and Effect' : Hume''s view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
    https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapter-abstract/135206122?redirectedFrom=fulltext
    Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal? — ucarr
    Yes. I used the term metaphorically to indicate what Plato called Logos. I'm not referring to the Bible-god. It's an abstract concept, that we rationally infer from the teleonomy of evolution, but have no way of verifying empirically. :smile:

    Logos :
    The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God."
    https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

    Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical? — ucarr
    In my personal amateur thesis, the "bridge" is Generic Information (EnFormAction) : the power to create novel configurations of actualized Potential. Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler expressed the notion as "It from Bit", where It = material object, and Bit = immaterial Information (EFA). This is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2, where C (cosmic constant) is an irrational number that is now identified with Dark Energy : the expansive "force" inflating the universe. :nerd:

    Cosmological constant The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

    Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction? — ucarr
    Ha! The way you expressed that tripartite definition of EFA, sounds like the Christian Trinity : three different roles of eternal unitary deity, working in the multiform space-time world . But my notion of EFA is more like a computer program with three sub-routines that work together toward a final solution to the Programmer's question. Unfortunately, I don't know what that question was, but it seems to require the emergence of Intelligence and Self-Consciousness. Yet I suppose you could say that EFA (cosmic mind in action) is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter.

    I wouldn't say that "matter_energy is coequal with {Cosmic} Mind" though. In the space-time world, matter & energy & mind are different forms of Generic Information, but subordinate to the eternal un-manifest Form/Logos. Since the existence & characteristics of an eternal entity (not deity) are beyond the scope of space-time reasoning, my metaphors should be taken with a grain of skeptical salt. :cool:

    PS___ For those more inclined toward Materialism/Physicalism, the Cosmic Potential/Mind could be expressed metaphorically as an Eternal Multiverse, wherein Energy & Entropy are eternally recycling. To be clear, in my metaphor, EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — Gnomon
    What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example?     — Alkis Piskas
    I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :smile:

    It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
    It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief).     — Alkis Piskas
    The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love:

    Does thinking or emotion come first?
    In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings – ways of, as it were, thinking our way out of feelings – ways of finding solutions that meets the needs that lie behind the feelings. The feelings come first in both a hierarchical and a chronological sense
    https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/thinking-and-feeling-whats-the-difference

    Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
    But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.)     — Alkis Piskas
    Human thought seems to be an evolutionary extension of animal "passions", but in it's ultimate form as Reason, is able to rise above base passions. As the ancient Stoics taught, the ability to think dispassionately is the primary advantage of humans over animals. We are simply animals who have "learned" to control & focus our inner motivations.

    Most pre-verbal human concepts are imaginary & holistic, so must be analyzed into conventional expressions before exported in spoken or written words. The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance ; not in the sense of . :nerd:

    The Dispassionate Life :
    Epicurus can respond that on his understanding of ‘dispassionate,’ the natural sensitivity of the human being is still fully operational. It’s just that the Epicurean has a correct understanding of the world and realizes that there is no reason be disturbed by it.
    https://modernstoicism.com/the-dispassionate-life-by-margaret-graver/

    the partial and holistic effects in mental imagery generation :
    Mental imagery generation is essential in the retrieval and storage of knowledge. Previous studies have indicated that the holistic properties of mental imagery generation can be evaluated more easily than the partial properties.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997403/

    What does being abstract mean?
    Abstract is from a Latin word meaning "pulled away, detached," and the basic idea is of something detached from physical, or concrete, reality. It is frequently used of ideas, meaning that they don't have a clear applicability to real life,
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstract
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Quite interesting. This contributes a lot to the lack of knowledge I have about the kind of senses plants have and how do they work, which I was talking about to AmadeusD a little while ago.
    I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants.     — Alkis Piskas
    Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. Each "message" stimulates some functional response. However, human neurology is far more complex, so the "meaning" of those messages is more subtle & personal, yet generalizable to other contexts. :cool:

    Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process. — Alkis Piskas
    Yes, but even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) and self-reference that makes human thought more meaningful, with more leverage over self and environment. And it's the ability to compare & contrast unreal abstract ideas, that makes Rational thought possible. :nerd:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part. — ucarr
    I have a blog post that presents a sort of Mind/Matter evolution "flow chart" in the form of an emergent phase ladder*1. But it was not specifically based on Deacon's terminology. However, my multiple phases could conceivably be translated into Deacon's three powers : Thermodynamics (Causation), Morphodynamics (Change), and Teleodynamics (Control)*2. Each step in the ladder is associated with a few "emergent properties" or systems.

    My single universal Dynamic (power of transformation) is EnFormAction, which combines Energy, Form-change, and Design (intention, purpose, constraint) into a single natural Force. Deacon's 3-in-1 nested chart is displayed below. :smile:

    *1. Teleological Evolution :
    So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the classical physics rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of quantum-level "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even intentional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
    https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

    *2. A teleodynamic system consists of coupling two morphodynamic systems such that the self undermining quality of each is constrained by the other. Each system prevents the other from dissipating all of the energy available, and so long term organizational stability is obtained.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

    From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter. — ucarr
    I'm not sure what you mean by "ground" in this context. Something like "ground of being" (G*D)? Or maybe fundamental cause (Prime Mover). Or perhaps, essential Substance, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura. One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution.

    From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution

    Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post. :nerd:

    400px-Homomorphoteleo.jpg
Home » Gnomon