-
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Yes. My use of "teleology" in the quote was ironic. Darwin's term "natural selection" was probably intended to avoid any interpretations of super-natural intervention. But his model for how natural selection works was based on examples of artificial (human) selection. Yet, what was supposed to distinguish Natural Selection from Artificial Selection was the assumption that teleological foresight of a sentient being was un-necessary. However, Darwin later admitted that Random Chance was not a reasonable alternative to some kind of Intentional Causation*1.In his "On the Origin of Species", I don't recall Darwin mentioning natural selection to necessarily incorporate "a teleological act by a physical organism", or by any other type of psyche whatsoever for that matter (this being strictly limited to artificial, rather than natural, selection). — javra
In retrospect though, the article you linked to does find implications for a necessary teleological interpretation of natural evolution*2. And that is just what I concluded in my own Enformationism thesis. As a non-theist, I was not looking for a super-natural explanation for the origin & evolution of the real world*3. And I don't accept ancient myths as reliable sources of technical information about how & why the world came to be, and to become. So, I typically use ancient philosophical terminology to describe my incomplete understanding of those hows & whys. Personally --- philosophically and scientifically --- I have a preference for Logical Teleology over Accidental Cosmology*4.
Plato's notion of Ideal Forms --- as the source of all Real Things in the known world --- is one such term. Also, Aristotle's Prime Mover & First Cause*5 arguments make sense to me, even in the light of modern post-Bang cosmology, which is temporally finite. Likewise, my own speculations about a pre-Bang creation event use non-religious terminology, in a futile attempt to avoid denunciations due to prejudice against both religion-in-general, and pre-science philosophy in particular. Yet, since empirical Science has no actual evidence of the origins of the Evolution Algorithm, why not use the theoretical methods of philosophy to go beyond the Big Bang barrier? :smile:
*1. Darwin's First Cause :
Even Darwin himself admitted, regarding “blind chance or necessity”, that “I am compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a theist”. Perhaps not a biblical Theist, but an enlightenment Deist. Even theistic botanist, Asa Grey, noted that, “Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes”. And that is also the case for the Intelligent Evolution corollary to the thesis of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/575509
*2. Teleological Selection :
Darwin's explanatory practices conform well, however, to recent defenses of the teleological
character of selection explanations.
https://inters.org/files/lennox1993.pdf
*3. Teleological Creation :
From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13752/why-science-has-succeeded-but-religion-has-failed/p9
*4. Logical Teleology vs Random Cosmology :
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html
*5. The Cosmological Argument :
Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Sorry. I thought you were referring to a more universal theory of evolution, that would expand on Darwin's biological focus, to a more general understanding of how the primitive proto-physics of the Big Bang has matured into current cosmic-scale, macro-scale, and sub-atomic physics. That incremental process of Emergence*1 has now progressed to the point of producing, not just more complexity, but the astonishing emergence of novelty, including meta-physical Minds, and "non-physical" Consciousness.↪Gnomon
Maybe "cosmic evolution" would have been a more appropriate term to use? The concept itself is that every "thing" within the universe/cosmos evolves via some form of selection that is fully natural. Back in my twenties, I upheld physicalism and causal determinism with a "naturalistic pantheism" worldview - held for ontological reasons. Things have since then changed for me. But the concept I've just outlined intrigued me back then - as it still does, though now within a different ontological frame of mind (one of non-physicalism and of a partially determinate indeterminism). — javra
The Phenomenon of Man was such a theory. But that was a century ago. I would be interested in an update, that attempts to explain Natural Selection on a cosmic scale. In fact, I have made my own amateur attempt at a hypothesis of Cosmic Evolution, based on 21st century Information Theory*2.
Darwin saw a parallel, with "Selection" by human minds, in the workings of Nature. Both are Natural in the sense of A> a teleological act by a physical organism, and B> a mathematical computation of inputs & outputs. No divine intervention was necessary to convert a wolf into a dog. It's doubtful that such a human-friendly predator would have evolved without Artificial selection. And it's unlikely that the various ancient human breeders had any far future vision of the domesticated results of their individual personal-preference choices.
Yet today, genetic engineers, are able to create designer dogs to specifications. However, the basic principles*3 of genetic evolution are inherent in Nature, and one species of Nature's pets has discovered those universal truths, and learned to apply them with god-like creativity. So, it seems that Nature has evolved it's own lineage of little creators.
The postulated "new law of evolution" seems to focus on the mathematical/logical functions*4 of the process of creating new forms from old. But didn't I see much elaboration on that aspect in the Abstract. And I doubt that the scientists were thinking in terms of PanTheism or PanPsychism, but they may be presciently & unknowingly thinking in terms of Enformationism*5. :joke:
*1. Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Note --- This is a Holistic term, not normally used in Reductive Physics
*2. Novelty, Information and Surprise :
The generalized information concept is called novelty and it is accompanied by two concepts derived from it, designated as information and surprise, which describe "opposite" versions of novelty, information being related more to classical information theory and surprise being related more to the classical concept of statistical significance.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-65875-8
*3. Evolutionary dynamics :
Evolutionary dynamics is the study of the mathematical principles according to which biological organisms as well as cultural ideas evolve and evolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_dynamics
*4. Quote from OP
"The new work postulates a ‘law of increasing functional information,’ which states that a system will evolve ‘if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions".
*5. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism and/or Creationism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just Matter & Energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- En-Formation is causal Energy plus limiting Laws (directional regulation). Equivalent to Plato's First Cause, aka Logos. Enformationism is an information-based philosophical theory of Cosmic Evolution. -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
Unfortunately, all of us world observers are physically limited to seeing open-ended "chains" of events without beginnings or endings. Admittedly, we star-gazing homo sapiens, having emerged in the middle of the story of cosmic evolution, can physically see only the mid-range links in the chain of change. But some of us curious creatures are un-satisfied with our physical limitations, so we engage our metaphysical powers (reason) in order to expand our view to see over the horizon.What we have here seems to be a difference between "top down" and "bottom up" explanations. The first appeals to general principles, laws, etc. that dictate ends, whereas the latter deals with decomposition and parts.
The preference for bottom up explanations is sometimes grounded in the idea that only these can explain the "causal chain of events" undergirding phenomena. — Count Timothy von Icarus
For example, by combining current observations with rational imagination, astronomers were able to construct a hypothetical model of the sudden beginning of the space-time continuum. And yet, that based-on-actual-events fictional picture of a Big Bang is necessarily fuzzy, and subject to various interpretations. Likewise, ancient philosophers, sans telescopes, traced their historical chain-of-events back toward the beginning, and inferred the logical necessity for a First Link. Consequently, they also deduced the necessity for a Final Link in a mechanical causal process that shows no signs of being self-existent.
The philosophers seem to think in terms of whole systems, while the mechanists are content to deal only with the parts of the system that come readily to hand. So, teleology is a holistic worldview, while teleonomy is a more narrowly-focused cosmology. Unfortunately, the rigidly-hierarchical unitary perspective is now associated with some disreputable behaviors by the human rulers of top-heavy imperial religions in the past. Therefore, those who have suffered the abuses of centralized power, are wary of heavy-handed top-down command ; apparently preferring the vagaries of a piecemeal fragmented process of cosmic construction.
But, what if adamant law-based top-down Design is combined with the freedom of bottom-up Exploration of options (descent with modifications). That's what Darwin observed in his theory of a deterministic Selection Algorithm choosing from among indeterminate Randomized Options. Since the origins of the evolutionary chain are shrouded in the mists of obscure events, maybe semi-autonomous Teleonomy is more apt than autocratic Teleology to describe the wandering world-system we experience. :smile:
Teleology vs Teleonomy :
By “decomposing” the universe into free-floating chunks, materialists can more easily avoid dealing with indications of Teleology in evolution. “The idea would be to eliminate the more robust commonsense notion of function and replace it with a deflationist theoretical conception – to replace teleology with teleonomy”. Teleonomy is future-oriented only in retrospect, not in prospect. However, for higher holistic organisms, teleological intention is a sign of rational, self-interested behavior. However, in altruistic humans, self-interest includes the interests of the community as a whole, and loved-ones in particular. That’s why Feser raises the “explanatory gap” in science regarding the emergence of Life, Consciousness, and Rationality. “The Aristotelian holds that sentient life is irreducible to merely vegetative life . . . . And the Aristotelian holds that rational life is irreducible to mere sentience”. That’s because those holistic functions are more-than the sum of their parts. The emergence of a new whole system (or sub-system; or holon) is always accompanied by novel properties and functions.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html
PS___ Those who, like Ed Feser, argue in favor of top-down Teleology --- read by Atheists as "Theology" --- like to use the term "irreducible", because their concept of cosmology is Holistic instead of Reductionistic. Yet, Holism seems anachronistic (e.g. New Age) to those whose worldview began in 17th century Europe with Mechanism & Materialism. So, in order to dodge that anti-religion bias, I'm willing to use the tepid term Teleonomy, to keep the discussion on a philosophical plane. :cool: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Perhaps, as an Epistemologist, you are using "information", in an Ontological sense, as a synonym for "experience" or "knowing"*1. Anyway, your what-it's-like formulation of Information may be getting at the essence of what it's like to be human : the experience (feeling ; knowledge ; consciousness) of being an information creator as well as consumer.But, saying that "Information is what it's like to be information" comes dangerously close to a tautology. — Gnomon
Well my notion of information here is even more basic than what you are talking about. Its just about distinctions. Experience and information are both primitive concepts in the sense that they cannot be further defined. So this tautology doesn't really add any danger that wasn't already there. — Apustimelogist
All physical objects intake & export Information in the form of Energy*2. Some animated objects also exchange Information in the form of meaningful Communication. And humans process both physical Energy and metaphysical Information into Culture. So, just as Matter is the essence of objects & animals, Mind is the essence of Man. And Mind is the faculty of processing & storing & communicating Information in all its various forms.
I just read an article in The Information Philosopher*3 that reminded me of your notion of "what it's like" : "To the extent that the information in the mind is isomorphic with the information in the object, we can say that the subject has knowledge of the external world. Information philosophy is a correspondence theory*4. To the extent that information in other minds is isomorphic to that in our minds, we have intersubjective shared knowledge, something impossible to show with words or logic alone." Does that formulation of Information-Consciousness make sense to you? :smile:
*1. Information (knowing ; experience) is what it's like to be
*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. The Information Philosopher :
Mind as actionable information
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/mind/
*4. Correspondence : isomorphic similarity of forms
a. a logical connection between things:
b. a mathematical relationship between things
c. a mental observation of similarity -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Yes, but. By "universal truth" I was referring to "explanatory power". But both of those idioms may be judged critically on the basis of physical evidence, not just logical consistency. Philosophy may be distinguished from Science in that it is not content to observe a repetitive series of events (C-D-E)), but stubbornly strives toward the possible original input or Cause and the probable ultimate end or Consequence (A . . . Z).I suppose the postulated New Law of Evolution will be judged, not by its abstract universal Truth, but by its concrete lab Results. :smile: — Gnomon
This gets back to its explanatory power, I think. — javra
As Hume noted, causation is not a physical observation, but a metaphysical inference : putting 2 & 2 together to get to 4, or connecting C to E by imagining an invisible link between them. For simple mechanical systems, the link is obvious. But for complex and on-going universe-wide processes, that can only be observed locally & incrementally, the causal relationship is more of a leap of imagination.
Pragmatic Scientists may be content to infer that C predicts E, even though D may also be part of the explanation. Yet, idealistic Philosophers tend to look beyond those local physical steps toward universal metaphysical origins & codas. You will never observe those extreme causes --- First & Final --- in a laboratory. Which is why we debate their reality & applicability in our forums.
At this moment, the New Law of Evolution seems to be more philosophical than scientific ; more metaphysical than physical. So, it won't be accepted as an actual empirical law of Nature, until the C-D-E steps, and their information links, can be demonstrated, either in a lab, or mathematically. I guess we'll have to stay tuned for further developments. But, due to my information-centric personal worldview, I'm inclined to provisionally accept the causal role of invisible EnFormAction in universal Evolution. :smile:
EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
The classical mechanistic model of physics was formulated by Newton*1, but I wasn't familiar with the Neo-Mechanistic Model (NMM)*2. My understanding is that Newton's deterministic mechanics was called into question by the indeterminism of Quantum physics. Yet, for most practical scientific purposes, classical physics is still applicable, on the macro scale. But, what about the cosmic scale?IMO though, the success of neo-mechanism has plenty to do with the philosophical, religious, and social context of the late-19th and early 20th century. It didn't just support a new way of looking at the sciences, but an entire "world view," on a level with the religion its advocates were self-consciously attempting to supplant. — Count Timothy von Icarus
For speculative philosophical purposes, Newton's notion of a divinely-designed Cosmic Mechanism was forced to adapt to the new reality of a non-mechanical foundation. Fundamentally, the world mechanism seems to have some degree of freedom to evolve in unpredictable directions. Some might interpret that uncertainty to directionless randomness, while others will see it as providing opportunities for progression in complexity, and perhaps for freewill choices.
A quick google makes NMM sound like the doctrine of Scientism*3 : the world is a physical mechanism grinding on interminably, without original impulse or final output. Hence no direction or reason. And especially, no creation event or transcendent origin. So, I'm guessing that NMM is more of a reactionary*4 worldview than a scientific model. It retains Newton's Laws, but omits G*D's Laws. Does that inference sound correct to you?
As you suggested, Scientism seems to provide some of the essential functions of a religious worldview*5 --- except of course, the emotional values that stem from belief in a prescient guiding hand behind the vagaries of nature. Perhaps the universal extent & power of physical Nature is close enough for pragmatic purposes*6. In the Age of Spiritual Machines*7, I suppose online forums may serve the communal purpose of a church. :smile:
*1. Classical mechanics :
The "classical" in "classical mechanics" does not refer to classical antiquity, . . . Instead, the qualifier distinguishes classical mechanics from physics developed after the revolutions of the early 20th century, which revealed limitations of classical mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics
*2. The Neo-Mechanistic Model :
They seek to explain how something works and not make claims about the ultimate reality of things.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81693
*3. Doctrine of Scientism :
"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry", or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Note --- For philosophical (cultural science) purposes, personal perspectives are inherent, since their objects are entirely subjective. And their focus is primarily on psychological "experience". Which is obviously "natural", but clearly not empirical.
*4. Reactionary : return to status quo
*5. What is the philosophical definition of religion?
Religion attempts to offer a view of all of life and the universe and to offer answers to most , if not all, of the most basic and important questions which occur to humans all over the planet. The answers offered by Religion are not often subject to the careful scrutiny of reason and logic.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/Philosophy_of_Religion.htm
Note --- Even philosophical Reason is suspect for those opposed to traditional religions. In its place we substitute documented Observation. Ironically, for some of us secular Philosophy provides universal answers without the necessity for a formal Creed or Authorized Bible. Adherents of Scientism seem to assume that there is, somewhere out there, an official document of scientific Truth --- but I haven't seem it.
*6. Scientism :
Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, in his 1971 essay "The New Universal Church", characterized scientism as a religion-like ideology that advocates scientific reductionism, scientific authoritarianism, political technocracy and technological salvation, while denying the epistemological validity of feelings and experiences such as love, emotion, beauty and fulfillment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
*7. The Age of Spiritual Machines is the ultimate guide on our road into the next century.
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Spiritual-Machines-Computers-Intelligence/dp/0140282025
PS___ Perhaps the primary advantage of Scientism is that, in theory, it provides hard (empirical) evidence to disprove aspects (beliefs) of traditional religions that one does not agree with. But, in practice we still seem to have never-ending philosophical dialogs & disputes about those age-old non-empirical open-questions. :cool: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?.while Mind is "unrealistic" in the sense of literally intangible & immaterial, hence not something you can directly manipulate for real-world purposes. — Gnomon
What makes you think that minds can't be manipulated for real world purposes? Do you actually believe that? — wonderer1 -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?As do I. So why my posts provoke such a never-ending stream of vituperation from you is not at all clear to me, but it is exceedingly tiresome, and the least productive and useful aspect of my participation here, so you will forgive me if in future I fail to response to your needless provocations. — Wayfarer
seems to envision his role on this forum as a Socratic gad-fly pecking & poking the transcendent pretensions of quixotic philosophy. But in practice, he sounds more like Poe's rapping-tapping raven, constantly croaking "nevermore", and preaching "despair" for those who wish to distinguish idealistic Philosophy from pragmatic Science. You'll do well to not open the door. :cool:
PS___But sometimes it's hard to resist responding to some blood-dripping tid-bit of provocation. That may be because he so craftily encapsulates the essence of shadowy Scientism into open-ended leading questions. :joke: -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
The adjective "unrealistic" was intended only as definitive, not derogatory. Matter is "realistic" in the sense of hands-on practical or pragmatic utility, while Mind is "unrealistic" in the sense of literally intangible & immaterial, hence not something you can directly manipulate for real-world purposes.Yet the latter is literally unrealistic — Gnomon
What makes you say this, out of interest? — Apustimelogist
Mind-world Ideals, such as Utopias. are considered to be literally unrealistic & out-of-reach. But . . . . and this is a big Butt . . . . "mere" Ideas, when coupled with Will & Intention, can have real-world consequences*1. So, although I am Materialistic & Realistic relative to practical or scientific questions, I am Mentalistic & Idealistic regarding philosophical (open-ended) or potential questions. Does that answer your question? :cool:
Quote from post above :
"A> Matter-only monism, or B> Mind-only monism. Yet the latter is literally unrealistic, and the former is essentially mindless."
*1. Elon Musk's "unrealistic" video-game goal of saving humanity by emigrating to Mars, has driven him to develop many practical stepping stones on the path to that "impossible dream" : electric cars, re-usable rockets, low-orbit communication satellites, etc.
Yes. The physical brain is a quantitative bio-machine, which processes countable units of matter & energy, in order to produce the qualitative products that we know as Ideas, Imagination, Experience, Consciousness, etc.Mind is merely its operational Function, which is only a name for an abstract input-output process of Living & Thinking. — Gnomon
Does that include qualia? — Apustimelogist
Similarly, the function of your Cell Phone is not to spit-out physical objects, such as a paper-tape of calculations. Instead, it processes Information and produces "Communication", which is not a quantifiable thing, but a process with a qualitative value to sender & receiver. "Communication" (share + action) is a noun that refers not to a particular Thing, but to a purposeful act or procedure, that can be imagined as-if a particular thing. Likewise, a Function is a rationally-inferred goal-directed on-going process that is sometimes treated, abstractly, as-if an observed static object. But the purposeful Quality is a mental noumenon, not a physical phenomenon. :smile:
PS___ Wayfarer's reply above may be more to your point.
Qualia are often referred to as the phenomenal properties of experience, and experiences that have qualia are referred to as being phenomenally conscious. Phenomenal consciousness is often contrasted with intentionality (that is, the representational aspects of mental states).
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/ -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
"corrected" 's observation that "much of modern thought" is Nihilistic*1. But I think he missed the point. Way didn't say that "modern science" is nihilistic, but "modern thought". Which I'm guessing is a reference to academic Philosophy, or the philosophy of science, or more generally Post-Modern philosophy*2 --- not a denigration of pragmatic Science per se. Maybe Way will clarify his referent, but I doubt he was concerned about the lack of ethical values in practical scientific endeavors.It seems to me like the most common scientific response to largely philosophical claims about the essential and apparent meaningless and purposelessness of "the world" has been to shrug, say "well that's just philosophy," and to go right on assuming purpose exists in theories. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Like you, I have seen multiple uses of the term "Purpose" in scientific papers. But they are usually referring to the apparent objectives of local organs or organisms, not the universal purpose of a divine creator*3. However, it seems strange that scientists infer purposeful behavior in creatures, but don't attempt to trace that teleological trail back to its original impulse. Perhaps, due to professional concern about the controversial implications of what they might find.
When astronomers tracked cosmic cause & effect back to a point-of-origin, they found evidence for an (ex nihilo???) "creation" event --- which could be interpreted in terms of one's religious myths. But such circumstantial evidence could also be interpreted in terms of non-religious philosophical concepts, such as a logically necessary First Cause or Prime Mover --- or even a Multiverse. Unfortunately, such abstract hypothetical concepts, in themselves, can't provide much motivation for personal Purpose, to find the best way to live in an "apparently" mechanical world.
But if we interpret the obvious step-by-step progression of evolution as-if it's something like a computer program, at least we may be able to infer, hypothetically, where Nature came from and where it's going. Moreover, since we have learned that the foundations of physics are not rigidly determinate or mechanical*4, we may see a role for human Will --- guided by philosophical principles --- in reaching our own little goals. :nerd:
*1. Quote from post in this thread :
Okay, clearer, though this observation concerns modern science and not, as you have said, "much of modern thought", and does not entail "nihilism" either (pace Nietzsche; vide Spinoza & vide Peirce). Apparently, you prefer pre-modern science ..
*2. Does postmodernism entail nihilism? :
Postmodernism is the stance that meaning isn't universal and outside ourselves. Nihilism is the stance that meaning is essentially a fiction.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/49588/does-postmodernism-entail-nihilism
*3. Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer :
Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
*4. Quantum Non-Mechanics :
The Quantum Universe in which we live, whether we want to accept it or not, may seem on the surface to be mechanical and linear but it is not.
https://larrygmaguire.medium.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-time-does-not-exist-5d0357a2a47b -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Your post reminded me of the old idiom : "that's my two bits worth" ; typically referring to an unsolicited opinion. The monetary reference was to a quarter dollar : $.25. But where did the term "two bits" come from? The explanation I found said it referred to a "spanish dollar" worth eight reales (pieces of eight?). Hence : two pieces = a quarter dollar. But my source says, there was no "one bit" coin.If we say there are two points, one relates to the other and vice versa. Then we have information. — Throng
Is that a cosmic coincidence, that one bit has no inherent value (meaning), except in relation to another bit? :joke:
ORIGIN OF 2 BITS :
https://sunfarm.com/images/2bits.htm -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
Other than Zarathustra, I'm not familiar with Nietzsche's opinions on Reason & Purpose. But one definition of Nihilism may shed some light*1. It seems to equate the emotional "emptiness" of an apathetic-materialistic-mechanistic worldview with a lack of values*1 (Ethics ; Axiology). Yet, maybe our post-enlightenment pragmatic values are appropriately Instrumental (means), and only lack the feeling of idealistic Intrinsic values (ultimate ends). Can't we have both Kirk's Feeling and Spock's Reasoning?↪180 Proof
I seem to remember that Nietszche had quite a lot to say about nihilism, which he ascribed to the dominance of scientific rationalism and the empty promisses of enlightenment rationalism among other things. And nihilism is precisely the sense of there being no purpose, no meaning, no raison d'etre. And then the New Left also had something to say about the instrumentalisation of reason - that reason, instead of being understood as a kind of animating principle or logos, was now simply means to ends, the discovery of effective causality, the prerogative of individual subjects, and so on. And on a popular level, the upsurge of mindless entertainment, drug addiction and many other social ills can be ascribed in part to the absence of a sense of purpose. — Wayfarer
Your response to 's challenge to define "purpose" is spot-on ; but then he may not share your philosophical purposes/values. The pre-enlightenment epitome of "Good" was God. So, what ultimate value could fill that role today? Perhaps you can address the question of "higher" values/purposes, in the context of a modern materialistic-mechanistic worldview. :cool:
*1. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
Note --- I'm guessing that he was rejecting only "higher" values, not base values.
*2. Value Theory :
Traditionally, philosophical investigations in value theory have sought to understand the concept of "the good". . . . . It is useful to distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory
*3. Nihilism :
It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism’s impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety, anger, and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It’s helpful to note, then, that he believed we could – at a terrible price – eventually work through nihilism. If we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
Note --- Apparently, the post-modern reaction merely meekly accepted the meandering uncharted course resulting from the rejection of Imperial Religion. Could there be a new star to steer by, that avoids the extremes of divine Theocracy and despotic Autocracy? Ironically, Tr*mpism may combine the worst of both paths. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I will assume that your philosophical "reality beyond" is something like Plato's Ideality, or Kant's mysterious realm of the ding-an-sich ; not a religious other-world populated with meddling gods & avenging angels. The comments here only skim the surface of my information-based BothAnd Monism. One holistic uber-reality with dual aspects.Now for me, double-aspect is a only in our models and not existing in reality beyond us. — Apustimelogist
Dualism is a philosophical issue only because our mental models can include referents to both perceived objects, and "things" that we know only by imagination. To wit : Ancient people inferred that there must be something invisible about humans that explains how they are different from animals (Reason), and how a living body is different from a dead body (Animation). Early labels for that unseen something (e.g. Greek psuche) seemed to equate Life & Mind as dual aspects of a universal Elan Vital.
So, eventually the Soul (Ghost) was imagined as a separate being, temporarily merged with a material body. But, Descartes' dualism focused mainly on the essential difference between a 3-dimensional physical body (res extensa) and a zero-dimensional metaphysical mind (res cogitans). And, Kant postulated that there must be a noumenal "reality" (or Ideality) beyond the scope of our phenomenal senses. He admitted that we can't actually know anything about that Platonic realm. Yet, he concluded that we can use reason & imagination to infer some logically necessary properties of such an immaterial sphere of unformed potential.
But, another perspective on the Platonic world of archetypal forms says that it is the True Reality --- a sort of heaven --- and our physical senses can detect only vague hints of what's really real. Even so, faced with a big-bang beginning, we can conjecture that our space-time world is not absolute, but merely a passing shadow (a model) of a more all-encompassing timeless realm of Potential. It's that extra-sensory speculation, though, that Materialism denies, and for good practical reasons. So, only impractical philosophers concern themselves with things they can't see or touch, but only imagine. Moreover, for Materialists, anything imaginary is immaterial, possibly illusory, and can't be proven to exist in any sensible manner.
So, there are at least two alternatives to traditional Body/Soul dualism : A> Matter-only monism, or B> Mind-only monism. Yet the latter is literally unrealistic, and the former is essentially mindless. So, I prefer a philosophical model, based on Information, that makes sense, both physically and metaphysically. For example, the Brain is a biological processor of Information, and the Mind is merely its operational Function, which is only a name for an abstract input-output process of Living & Thinking. The process is not the thing, and we infer functions only by meta-physical inference, not by physical sensation. Yet, viewed as a whole system, that mind/matter duality is a singular Person : You. :blush:
Is the information stored on a computer metaphysical or physical? :
Great question. All information is metaphysical - necessarily so, in fact. Information exists as differences, and a difference is the one thing you definitely cannot prove exists in physics . . . . The physical structure is the material organisation. . . . . For this reason all information can be considered as sets of co-ordinates, but the actualisation of the information (the manner in which it becomes intelligible) involves the solution of the differences.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-information-stored-on-a-computer-metaphysical-or-physical
Note --- Well-informed people have argued for both sides of the physical/metaphysical question. So, I conclude that Generic Information must take on both forms. If not physical, computers would not be able to process it. If not metaphysical, humans could not make sense of it. So, the Information of which our world, and our world models, are constructed is Both-And, not Either-Or. BothAnd is a Monism. -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?You've seen the range of information definitions that show up here. Two that seem to be scientific but are not are Shannon information and what physicists call physical information. Both of these reduce to abstract concepts that must be supported by brain state. — Mark Nyquist
So, do you think in the absence of any mind that basic logical principles such as the law of the excluded middle would not hold? My view would be that the law of the excluded middle and other such simple principles are discovered by rational sentient beings who have the wits to discern them. That such principles are discerned by intelligence, not 'supported by brain state'. The unique thing about them is that they're independent of any particular mind, but only discernable to reason. That is what gives them the status as foundational to rational thought (nous). — Wayfarer
I may be opening a new can ofwormsneurons here. But, I wonder if AI mechanisms --- emulating brain states --- can reason*1 (infer novel ideas), or do they just compute (add & subtract via parallel processing)? Some people seem to assume that self-programming computers (non-biological machines) are reasoning*2. Does reasoning require some non-mechanical non-linear (1+1+1+ ~ +1 = X) feature, in order to discover X the unknown?*3
For example, Quantum physics has determined that the matter a machine is made of is fundamentally non-deterministic*4. Do the non-local & indeterminate properties of sub-atomic matter provide lower-level-loopholes to allow our biological machines (brains) to make unpredictable-illogical-paradoxical quantum leaps of reasoning? Does Rational Inference require some emotional commitment?*5
Does the human brain have some non-mechanical feature/quality (e.g. Holism ; multi-level integration of sub-systems) that overcomes the physical limitations of a deterministic mechanical system? Does that freedom from material & linear-logical bondage allow the feedback loops that we call "Consciousness"? Not sayin', just askin'. Hmmm. :chin:
*1. To Reason vs To Compute :
Reason and calculate are semantically related. In some cases you can use "Reason" instead a verb "Calculate".
Calculate verb - To decide the size, amount, number, or distance of (something) without actual measurement.
Reason verb - To form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information.
https://thesaurus.plus/related/calculate/reason
*2. Reasoning in AI :
In fact, for centuries, it was the ability to reason that set humans apart from other animals and machines. But now, with the reasoning in AI, that distinction has been breached.
https://emeritus.org/in/learn/what-is-reasoning-in-ai/
*3. What Artificial Intelligence Still Can’t Do :
1) Use “common sense.”
2) Learn continuously and adapt on the fly.
3) Understand cause and effect.
4) Reason ethically.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkochkodin/2023/11/19/a-trove-of-precious-gemstones-was-appraised-at-32-billion-the-mischief-around-it-is-priceless/?sh=6414bc541186
*4. Why is quantum physics not deterministic? :
Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-physics-not-deterministic
*5. Emotions as Inferences :
This chapter reviews emotions as inferences. The process of understanding principles is tractable, whereas the work of following them is not. It also suggests a solution as to why emotions are puzzling. In addition, it illustrates how emotions and reasoning influence one another
https://academic.oup.com/book/11984/chapter-abstract/161227867?redirectedFrom=fulltext -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
In a philosophical sense, I think of "Symmetries" as logical relationships, which are the essence of Information. Existentially, those inter-relationships may well be fundamental to Reality in it's multiplicity. For example, when a Singularity divides into a Diversity, symmetries are born, and can later be broken : e.g. matter/anti-matter. The immensity of this cosmic notion is astronomically over my head, but I'll put it on the docket for further exploration. :nerd:So maybe symmetries / invariances are fundamental. — Apustimelogist
Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking :
The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/ -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Yes. Unfortunately, some on this forum seem to think that the job of Philosophy is simply to criticize our use of language. Perhaps the noun "being" and the verb "to be" are the most difficult concepts to "grapple with", since we directly experience Being, but can only imagine Non-Being. Likewise, we experience Consciousness, but unconsciousness is the lack of experience. Our language can express "what it's like to see", but fumbles with "what it's like to be".I see philosophy as primarily concerned with the problems of meaning - and that in an existential, rather than a semantic, sense. Philosophy attempts to grapple with the perennial problem of 'what it means to be', and it's not an academic concern, as we are, in fact, beings. — Wayfarer
What is it like to be unconscious? Do we continue to Be when unconscious, or asleep, hence not experiencing? Those are rhetorical questions, for another lifetime . . . another Beingness. :smile:
I'm not very familiar with Vedanta, but that's similar to what I meant by distinguishing between Brain & Soul, or Body & Person. Materialists typically deny the existence of a Soul, probably because it is not a perceivable phenomenon. Yet, Soul and Person are conceivable noumena; even though their mode-of-being is debatable. I'm also not familiar with Materialist literature on the topic of Noumena*1. Is it a legitimate topic of philosophical "grappling"? Or best left to the religious myth-makers? :cool:Recall that in Vedanta, consciousness (citta) is never a 'that'. It is never an object, or for that matter a phenomenon. The phenomenon is 'that which appears'; consciousness is 'to whom it appears'. — Wayfarer
*1. Noumena : The Self-concept we call "Soul" is definitely a metaphysical idea, not a physical thing. But is it a ding-an-sich? Who knows? -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
To make sure I understand what you meant by "universal evolution" I googled the term and found the Chardin site. If you were not referring to that particular theory, is there another reference I can look at? Or were you just implying that Darwin's "evolution" was not "universal"? Is there more than one general theory of evolution that the "new law" might apply to? :smile:BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. . . . . At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find. — javra
By "universal evolution" are you referring to the theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin*1? — Gnomon
In relation to what I said, most definitely not. — javra -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Information used to be defined in terms of knowledge / meaning contained in a mind, especially connotation or denotation that is personally relevant to the receiver. Hence, knowing is experiencing/feeling, either first hand, or from communication. But what is a sentient "person" : the body/brain or soul/mind, or both, in a symbiotic relationship? My money is on the Both/And answer.I am just saying that it is plausible to construe experiences as information. All I really know about my own experiences is that I am making or perceiving distinctions which are immediate to me. — Apustimelogist
On this forum, we always come back to the Either/Or, Physical vs Metaphysical, question. But, perhaps, as you suggest, the distinction merely reflects the difference-of-purpose for Science vs Philosophy. So, it depends on who's asking. Is the Brain or the Soul the experiencer of incoming Information? It seems that the brain processes the data, but the mind interprets its significance relative to the Self. Yet, one without the other is insentient. It takes two to know, to know that you know, and to know that you are two.
How could a scientist know what the brain knows, except by asking the knower --- who will respond with spoken or written tokens of meaning : words.*1 Yet, apart from an informed experiencing mind, those tokens are nonsensical. Does a parrot understand the meaning of the sounds it echoes? Obviously, the parrot perceives the sounds a human makes, but whether it conceives the encoded meaning is debatable.
When scientists began looking into how we communicate Information from one mind to another, they of course began to look for atoms of meaning (bits). But those bits are intangible and invisible. So Shannon defined a new kind of token that could be encoded into electric pulses, transported over wires, and then decoded back into meaning in a personal mind. But, in the process of exporting from one mind to another, the codes are encapsulated into mathematical abstractions that have no inherent personal meaning. But only conventional abstract significance : a logical state with only two possible values : yes/no, or true/false, or 1/0.
Since, information is so important to us, we have many different words to describe various facets of the process of enforming or encoding or experiencing meaning into a mind. So, your equation of "experience" with "information" agrees with common sense : I experience, and I know what I experience, and I imagine that a record of that experience is encoded physically in my brain. Yet, when we look at the tangles of neurons, we don't see anything identifiable as Information or Meaning. Mind-reading requires two minds and two brains. Therefore, I conclude that information/meaning is a holistic phenomenon of an integrated system of sensors and coders.
Is Consciousness purely a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, or a function of both Mind and Matter? I guess that depends on how you define "phenomenon". Does a camera knowlingly "observe" phenomena or just blankly record photons? The great philosopher Yogi Berra once noted : " you can observe a lot just by watching". :smile:
Denotation : the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.
Connotation : an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.
*1. See Mind-blowing mind-reading technology thread for pros & cons of the question.
-
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Please elaborate on the "system structure" relative to Aristotelian "form"*1. Is it your own insight, or do you have links to sites that explore that relationship? I too see a similarity between a functional system of things and the collective Form (interrelationships ; patterns) of multiple entities*2.The key feature of the modern worldview is the mechanistic model which, because it has rejected the Aristotelian principles of final causation and substantial form... — Wayfarer
I'm inclined to see evolution of scientific understanding as having resulted in recognition of "system structure" as playing a role analogous to that of "form" for Aristotle.
In the case of final causation, it is more a matter of 'having no need of that hypothesis', and Ockham's razor, than it is a matter of rejection. — wonderer1
I agree that pragmatic scientists "have no need" of non-mechanistic models of causation. Classical physics works fine for manipulating macro scale mechanical systems. But not so well for quantum-scale systems. Therefore, theoretical scientists and philosophers tend to look at the gap between Cause & Effect, and ask "What's the connection"*3. For example, how is mathematical momentum (a property or qualia) of one mass transmitted to another material mass? So, this forum should be an appropriate venue for exploring such impractical open questions.
Pertinent to the OP, the universe seems to work as an evolving system, bound together by Gravity --- formerly imagined as spooky action at a distance. But now we are told that Gravity is merely Geometry, a mathematical inter-relationship. So, what's the connection? Is Gravity Aristotelian? :smile:
*1. Form vs. Matter :
Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
*2. What is a system? :
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. ___ Wikipedia
*3. Cause and Effect :
'Cause and Effect' considers 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 -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
I recently read two essays relevant to philosophical questions about the hows & whys of the Emergence of Life and Mind from a material world. The first is a neuroscience article by philosopher Phillip Goff, on why Consciousness is not the kind of phenomenon to be studied by scientific methods. Which seems to be an argument for a non-reductionist (Holistic) approach to understanding such immaterial features of the world.# In essence, the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity. . . . . # The law could help to explain the emergence of complex systems around us . . . .# This new law identifies "universal concepts of selection" that drive systems to evolve, whether they're living or not. — Gnomon
Goff begins with a note about the Integrated Information Theory, which tries to tightrope the line between Reductionism and Holism*1. Next, he argues in favor of the opposite perspective, although he avoids using the fraught term "Holism"*2. Then he mentions the "proposed new law of evolution" that we are discussing in this thread*3. And finally, he tentatively proposes that there must be an alternative yet-to-be-discovered process to derive Mind from Matter. He concludes with a suggestion pertinent to this Science-dominated forum: "We need to let the philosophers do the philosophy and the scientists study the brain". :smile:
*1. Consciousness can't be explained by brain chemistry alone :
" In September, over 100 consciousness researchers signed a public letter condemning one of the most popular theories of consciousness— the integrated information theory — as pseudoscience. This in turn prompted strong responses from other researchers in the field. Despite decades of research, there's little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention."
https://www.livescience.com/health/neuroscience/consciousness-cant-be-explained-by-brain-chemistry-alone-one-philosopher-argues
*2. I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness.
*3. And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations, arguing for a kind of memory inherent in nature that guides the construction of complex molecules.
*4. For any adaptive behaviour associated with consciousness, there could be a nonconscious mechanism that instigates the same behaviour.
Note --- I interpret the information-based "New Law" of evolution to postulate something more like a goal-directed "Program" --- with memory & rules --- than a mere chain-of-events "Mechanism".
The second article is a Mind Matters review of Goff's forthcoming book How Life Works*5. Denyse O'Leary's article*6 begins with "Science writer Philip Ball, facing cancer surgery, struggles to find meaning and purpose in a wholly material world. He is looking in the wrong place". She notes that Goff is an Atheist, and implies that he is blind to the "true" solution to the Life & Mind problem, substituting philosophical metaphors --- "self-organized knots of energy and matter" --- in place of a traditional story of creation.
She quotes from the book : "To risk an anthropomorphism, evolution chose to work this way". Then, "Either all that order arose from some random drift of the universe as Ball, an atheist, seems to think or an intelligent agent chose it". Finally, she concludes : "Sorry but no. The biologists who want to banish meaning and purpose from science do so because they are materialists. They know perfectly well that only an immaterial mind can recognize meaning in anything. That’s in the nature of what meaning is."
It's probably too early to see whether the New Law of Evolution will shed any light on the perennial questions that leave philosophers floundering in the muddled middle between Materialistic Science and Spiritualistic Religion. :cool:
*5. How Life Works / A User’s Guide to the New Biology.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo207403562.html
*6. Only An Immaterial Mind Can Ask “How Does Life Work?”
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/11/only-an-immaterial-mind-can-ask-how-does-life-work/
-
Proposed new "law" of evolution
That's my remembrance from Chardin's Phenomenon of Man essay, which I read many years ago. :smile:As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will — Gnomon
It doesn't say anything like that in the wiki you linked. Where are you getting that from? — flannel jesus
The Phenomenon of Man :
Teilhard argues that just as living organisms sprung from inorganic matter and evolved into ever more complex thinking beings, humans are evolving toward an "omega point"—defined by Teilhard as a convergence with the Divine.
https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenon-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061632651 -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Yes. My own EnFormAction hypothesis, based on a philosophical mash-up of Quantum & Information theories, is essentially a Teleonomy. But I didn't know that term before devising the hypothesis of information-based intentional (programmed) progression, as an alternative to the common notion of pointless random evolution. Darwin's use of the term "to evolve" meant simply "to change", but we can now see a trend toward complexity & consciousness. Whether that trend will end in Nirvana or Armageddon remains to be seen. :nerd:↪javra
↪Gnomon
There's an interesting entry in Wikipedia, on the biological term (a neologism), teleonomy. — Wayfarer
The EnFormAction Hypothesis
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
I entered a review of Feser's book in my blog, comparing the worldviews of Aristotle and Einstein. :smile:Edward Feser gives an in-depth analysis of this in his book Aristotle's Revenge. — Wayfarer
Teleonomy & Emergence :
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
By "universal evolution" are you referring to the theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin*1? As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will (intention ; orthogenesis ; programming ; elan vital)*2. If so, the theory's "explanatory power" would interpret the Effects in terms of the Cause --- and vice-versa. Also, the final Form could be predicted based on the original Information (program ; design). Can we do anything more than speculate on the First Cause? Would such religio-philosophical guessing be "taken seriously" by pragmatic scientists?BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. . . . . At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find. — javra
Since we find ourselves in the middle of a single instance of Universal Evolution, how could we verify that our understanding of the "mechanism" is correct, without knowledge of the design intent? Is there a Final Form toward which the world is enforming? Could this OP's information-based "new law" shed any light on the "mechanisms" of evolution? :smile:
*1. Universal evolution :
Universal evolution is a theory of evolution formulated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Julian Huxley that describes the gradual development of the Universe from subatomic particles to human society, considered by Teilhard as the last stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution
*2. Teilhard inspired by Bergson's Creative Evolution???
Creative Evolution (French: L'Évolution créatrice) is a 1907 book by French philosopher Henri Bergson. Its English translation appeared in 1911. The book proposed a version of orthogenesis in place of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, suggesting that evolution is motivated by the élan vital, a "vital impetus" that can also be understood as humanity's natural creative impulse. The book was very popular in the early decades of the twentieth century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Evolution_(book) -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Sometimes a tautology is philosophically fundamental. Shannon defined Information physically, in terms of Energy/Entropy relationships. You seem to be defining Information metaphysically or essentially, in terms of meaningful experience, conscious awareness, or sentient knowing. Are you equating Sentience and Experience with the capability for being affected mentally by sensory impressions from the environment? Can you expand on that notion relative to The Hard Problem? :smile:But, saying that "Information is what it's like to be information" comes dangerously close to a tautology. — Gnomon
Well my notion of information here is even more basic than what you are talking about. Its just about distinctions. Experience and information are both primitive concepts in the sense that they cannot be further defined. So this tautology doesn't really add any danger that wasn't already there. — Apustimelogist -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
No worries mate. :wink:It seems I might have been too terse in my reply. Certainly: science is thoroughly founded upon philosophy and in no way the other way around. . . . . I hope this better presents my position regarding science and causation (as just one example of science and metaphysics in general). — javra
Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression. I was not criticizing your post. But, I was prompted to do some Googling on the Science vs Philosophy, and Causation vs Randomness, questions. I happen to agree with your position on the primacy of Philosophy, not only in history, but also in generality. However, some posters on TPF seem to feel that Philosophy is little brother to its dominant younger sibling in terms of economic importance. Yet that top 10 rating depends on where you place your values : material vs mental, or instrumental (means) vs terminal (ends).
Regarding Causation, the origin & direction of causation (First Cause ; Teleology) is not important for materialists. What matters to them is tangible results. Modern science is unsurpassed in producing predictable products and marketable merchandise*1. The quantum genie is now out of the bottle, and granting all kinds of pragmatic wishes. But few are asking philosophical questions about Wisdom, Ethics, & Proportion.
I suppose the postulated New Law of Evolution will be judged, not by its abstract universal Truth, but by its concrete lab Results. :smile:
*1. The Manhattan Project grew rapidly and employed nearly 130,000 people at its peak and cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $24 billion in 2021). Over 90 percent of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10 percent for development and production of the weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Apparently the cost to produce two bombs was "worth it" in terms of the existential threat of German & Japanese political, economic & military dominance. For more philosophical considerations, some would disagree. Especially, since one psychologically expensive product of that technology is the mushroom cloud hanging over mankind. Perhaps, some of that psychic cost is offset by the income from almost a century of high-grossing apocalyptic movies. :wink: -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Unfortunately, although most of the authors of the original paper --- On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems --- are professional scientists, their collective conclusion (postulation) seems to be based on speculative philosophical reasoning instead of firmly "established" scientific data.This is a bit like preaching to the choir, here. :smile: I’ll only add that any new metaphysical postulations (e.g. as to the nature of causality) will need to remain conformant to established data obtained via the scientific method. But maybe this goes without saying. — javra
So, your cautionary note made me question the scientific criteria for Causality*1. And it seems that scientists typically depend on philosophical reasoning for such immaterial & non-sensory connections between a physical input (cause) and a material output (effect). Moreover, Kant & Hume*2 cast doubt on our ability to firmly "establish" scientific criteria to prove physical causation. And any attempt to define Causation metaphysically gets befogged in the murk of philosophical jargon and denial of its provability*3.
Even Darwin's presumption --- of a causal connection between one generation of a species and a later different form --- seems to be little more than a personal opinion. Was Selection the Cause of evolutionary novelty? If so, determined by whom? The lack of a defined beginning of the series, and the missing links between stages, seem to imply that the phenomenon of "Causation" itself is a subjective logical inference (belief), instead of an objective sensory observation (fact). Such open questions suggest that, without a specified First Cause, any postulation of Causation, and Evolution, becomes circular*4. Hence, the necessity for a conjectured "Law" to fill the causal gap. :smile:
*1. What is scientific definition of causation?
Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Note --- No mention of a causal Agency to initiate a sequence of events. Hence, either infinite or circular.
*2. Kant and Hume on Causality :
Kant agrees with Hume that neither the relation of cause and effect nor the idea of necessary connection is given in our sensory perceptions; ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Note --- The relation between Cause & Effect is an Induction, not a Deduction ; a theory not a fact.
*3. The Metaphysics of Causation :
For each of these putative causal relations, we can raise metaphysical questions: What are their relata? What is their arity? In virtue of what do those relata stand in the relevant causal relation? And how does this kind of causal relation relate to the others? Of course, there is disagreement about whether each—or any—of these relations exists. Russell (1912: 1) famously denied that there are any causal relations at all, quipping that causation is “a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm” (see also Norton 2003). Others may deny that there is a relation of general causation or influence at all, contending that claims like 2 and 3 are simply generalizations about token causal relations (see §2.1 below). There will also be disagreement about whether these relations are reducible, and, if so, what they can be reduced to—probabilities, regularities, counterfactuals, processes, dispositions, mechanisms, agency, or what-have-you.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
*4. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious. How causation is understood shapes the structure of evolutionary theory, and historical and contemporary debates in evolutionary biology have revolved around the nature of causation. Despite its centrality, and differing views on the subject, the major conceptual issues regarding the nature of causation in evolutionary biology are rarely addressed. This volume fills the gap, bringing together biologists and philosophers to offer a comprehensive, interdisciplinary treatment of evolutionary causation.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262039925/evolutionary-causation/ -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
The inter-action of neurons may well be mechanistic, but the general brain "state" is a snapshot (static) pattern or relationship, which requires a sentient observer to "see". For example, a political "state" is not a physical object or collection of objects, but the collective opinion of those who identify with that particular polity. In mathematical Statistics, a particular "state" is a datum, that in itself has no value, but only in relation to other states or data. Hence, "data" is relevant to "information" & meaning. :smile:I can add that once brain state is identified as the physical form of information then a mechanistic theory works for me and the loose ends have been taken care of. — Mark Nyquist -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Off-topic :Certainly one can find synonyms such as "supernatural", "spiritual", or "supernal", this while on a philosophy forum, rather than claiming that metaphysics is founded upon, or else is about, magic. Or at least qualify what type of metaphysics one is referring to. Or not. At the end of the day, just sharing perspectives here. — javra
I like to use "Meta-Physics" as a synonym for Philosophical issues. And the referent - antecedent-denotation is to Aristotle's ancient writings, not to medieval Catholic scholarship, or modern academic arguments. So, I use the term primarily to distinguish mental-rational-holistic topics from material-scientific-reductive studies. Unfortunately, some on this forum seems to insist that it's a synonym for "anti-science".
On TPF, it seems impossible to work around the hard prejudice attached to that taboo term ; even when I specify "what type of metaphysics" I'm referring to. I could just say "philosophy", but for Materialists & Physicalists, even that well-known category seems to be limited to objective sense-based themes, and excludes any subjective concepts known only via Reason, such as the possibility of Kantian transcendence. That anti-philosophy bias strictly limits the range of topics we can discuss calmly & rationally to those certified by pragmatic Science. Are you aware of any common synonyms of Metaphysics that are not associated with "supernatural" or "spiritual" or "religion" or "magic"? :smile: -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
Pardon the intrusion, but could reflect that accusation right back at you. You seem to be confusing what you believe with "what is". Yet, your science-based worldview {insert label here} is what you are convinced exists, not by personal perception, but based on hearsay from those who see by proxy for you, perhaps via artificial technology instead of natural perception. Is that an accurate assessment?Not being as such, but of the objects of experience. Questions about what objectively exists are different to questions about the nature of existence, which are much broader in scope. — Wayfarer
You are confusing what you would like to be for what is. — Restitutor
But Way is talking about what we know via our innate human Reasoning*1. For example, Quantum Physics includes subatomic Quarks in its list of "what exists" in Nature. But no one has ever seen a quark*2. So, when you say, "if it looks like a Quark, and quacks like a Quark, it must be a Quark", you are stating a belief or opinion, not an objective observation. In other words, if the indirect evidence fits our abstract definition of a Quark, it must be the thing named. That's the Nominal Fallacy.
Do you believe in Mathematics? Is it natural? Is it mechanistic? Are imaginary numbers Real? In what sense does Math exist? Have you ever seen an example with your eyes? How do you know that (2 + 2 always = 4)? By direct observation, or because a teacher told you so, or because you have done the math often enough to infer . . . not that the equation exists physically, but that it is True philosophically? What are the philosophical consequences of mechanistic mathematics with infinities between the inputs & outputs? Just kidding. Don't burn out your brain computing a mechanical answer. :chin:
*1. Nature of Existence :
Existence is comprised of space, time, and consciousness. These characteristics manifest in the perceptible forms of capability, activity, and awareness, respectively.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=117288
Note --- Space is inferred from observing Matter, and Time is inferred by observing Change. Is Consciousness perceptible or conceptible? Is Awareness a directly knowable physical feature of Nature, or a meta-physical aspect known only via Rational Inference? If Apprehension of meaning is known via perception, what does it look like? How do you know?
*2. How Do We Know Quarks Exist If They Have Never Been Directly Detected?
It comes down to indirect effects — how quarks influence their surroundings.
http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/how-do-we-know-quarks-exist-if-they-have-never-been-directly-detected
Note --- Reasoning from "indirect effects" to Existence is also how we know Energy exists, even though no one has ever seen, touched, or tasted Energy. For example, a Photon goes from invisible Potential to visible Effects so fast that we never see the particle itself. So, the existence of Energy is not objective, but subjective : known by logical inference, not by observation.
*3. What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
Werner Heisenberg, among others, interpreted the mathematics to mean that reality doesn’t exist until observed. “The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible,” he wrote. . . . But quantum theory is entirely unclear about what constitutes a “measurement.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/
Note --- A measurement must be perceptible in some sense. Quantum measurements are inferred indirectly via mathematical analysis of abstract scattering patterns. {see image below}
What is the "nature" of Quark existence? Is it Real or Ideal? How do you know?
CAN YOU SEE THE QUARK IN THIS PICTURE?
-
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
As usual, the implicit debate within the dialog is between the utility of Practical Realistic Physicists (Feynman) versus the futility of Philosophical Idealistic Physicists (Wheeler, Heisenberg). The former produce tangible results --- television, computers, cell phones, and nuclear weapons --- while the latter postulate abstract concepts --- words, ideas, principles, etc.The fact that quantum physics appears to undermine the concept of objectivity was part of the major news out of the Solvay Conference in 1927. Why was Albert Einstein compelled to ask the question 'doesn't the moon continue to exist if we're not observing it?' The later Bohr-Einstein debates were mainly about this. Hey, don't take it from me, here it is from John Wheeler: — Wayfarer
So, we're talking past each other, about apples vs appleness ; specifications vs generalities ; objectivity vs subjectivity ; matter vs mind. But, why are we talking about Apples & Bombs on a philosophy forum? You can't eat "appleness", so what good is it? Apparently, for some of us, a full belly is better than a satisfied mind. Why don't the fruitful utilitarian belly-fillers just go away and leave us fruitless futilitarian mind-fillers alone? :joke:
What is the difference between a philosopher and a physicist?
Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/course-listing/physics-and-philosophy
-
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?
Again, your aspersion has missed the point of the original question : What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?Your thinking is rather last decade. The systems that run modern AIs use many interconnected processors operating in parallel, and a complex ballet of distributed processing is a more accurate metaphor than an assembly line. Furthermore,neuromorphic hardware that will massively increase the degree of parallelism while also dramatically dropping the power consumption is around the corner. — wonderer1
Parallel processing --- multiple assembly lines --- increases Mechanical through-put, but has nothing to do with Consciousness, or Philosophy. Neuromorphic hardware is an attempt to mechanically mimic the structure of the human brain. But the salient Function of the brain, for its owner, is not fast thinking, but the creation of Awareness & Self-Consciousness. In this 20th decade of the 20th century, can you point to a working example of Machine Consciousness? As I said before : "computing" is easy compared to "knowing". :smile:
Neuromorphic Machine Consciousness :
These questions are rooted in what is called machine consciousness. How do we create consciousness when we don't understand it or its objective in humans?
https://www.servomagazine.com/magazine/article/rise-of-the-neuromorphic-machines
ChatGPT: Has a chatbot finally achieved self-awareness? :
So, ChatGPT knows that it has an internal state which reflects the memory of what has been said so far. But it still vehemently insists on not having feelings or consciousness.
https://lamarr-institute.org/blog/chatgpt-has-a-chatbot-finally-achieved-self-awareness/ -
What are the philosophical consequences of science saying we are mechanistic?What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor
Computer information processing is simply a mechanical procedure --- one thing after another --- as envisioned by Shannon. And some people still expect those assembly-line mechanisms to soon become Conscious, emulating human Sentience, as the data through-put increases. Yet "computing" is easy compared to "knowing".
For example, the brain stores data, not as localized physical registers, but distributed & interrelated as non-local pattern. Similarly, the human Self-image (Me) is not a physical pattern of dots, but a meta-physical design of meaningful relationships. So, the "Fundamental" difference, is an Integrated System versus a linear procedure.
Therefore, it's plausible that, as AI becomes more internally integrated and self-referenced (feedback), it might become Conscious, in some artificial or alien sense. But, I suspect that a novel manner of manipulating Information may be necessary. :smile:
PS___ This is just a riff on your insightful question, not an authoritative answer to the riddle of the "hard question". -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
That is an important distinction for understanding the multipurpose roles of Information (EnFormAction) in the world. Some TPF posters like to think of Information as-if it's an objective (physical) thing, such as a bit of Matter, or a unit of Energy. Instead, it's a (functional) relationship and a dynamic (meta-physical) process, that unites disparate parts into meaningful patterns of wholeness. I often refer to Information as a "shape-shifter" that can't be pinned-down to a single Particle or Shape. Instead, it's the Platonic Principle of Form. :smile:I’ve often made the point that there is a well-known meme from Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics, often quoted on the internet, to wit ‘information is information, not matter or energy.’ This has been seized on in such a way that information is regarded as a kind of updated or more sophisticated form of matter-energy, or that by substituting the concept of information for that of matter, a more adequate metaphysics can be developed. The problem is that information is not a metaphysical primitive in the sense that matter or energy were thought to be. There is no such thing as information per se, it something that is always output or derived. Hence treating information as a metaphysical ground of being, akin to how materialism regards matter, is complex and controversial. — Wayfarer
Quote from OP :
"In essence, the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity "
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, and natural trend, force, or principle, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- You won't find this term in science books, because it's a custom-made coinage to describe a novel concept, that has not yet been recognized in the context of reductive & materialistic Science. Yet, it may serve as a shorter name for the "Law of Functional Information" referred-to in the OP. I doubt that it qualifies as a (reductive) Scientific "Law", but more like a (holistic) Philosophical Principle.
Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- Archetypes are not real implemented objects, but ideal design concepts --- universal potential, not actual instances. -
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Sorry to butt-in here, but it seems to me that this "disagreement" is not about "question begging" but about Question Defining. I think I understand what you are aiming-at with the equation of a "bit" of incoming Information, and the "what it's like experience" of meaning in the mind. But, saying that "Information is what it's like to be information" comes dangerously close to a tautology. And strays near the Cartesian Theater's observing homunculus, that has baffled better minds than mine. Because "information" is inherently ambiguous.Well I think its just question begging here either side because I am just making the claim that information could be simply what its like to be information. And you just disagree. — Apustimelogist
Unfortunately, the term "information" has been defined in various ways. For example, as both a physical Quantum out there, and a metaphysical Qualia in here. To be Informed is to experience a "Difference (A) that makes a Difference (B)". The A> Distinction may be a "bit" of incoming physically embodied information, but the B> Distinction is an internal metaphysical idea or image that makes a difference (meaning) to the Observer. Our difficulty with defining such subjective distinctions objectively may be due to the fact that Information is both Objective and Subjective. There's an inherent ambiguity. So, don't give-up on your definition, just try to grasp the other (complementary) meaning of "information". :smile:
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
I have saved a PDF of the Assembly Theory article*1, but haven't read it in detail yet. Coincidentally, I noticed that one of the authors is Sara Walker*2, of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) for the Study of Complexity*3. She is a physicist and an astrobiologist, and that combination of abstract Math & ambitious Life may require looking at the world from a different perspective. Ironically, this "theory was developed as a means to detect evidence of extraterrestrial life from data gathered by astronomical observations or probes" ___Wiki.By strange co-incidence, there's another journal article about a very similar idea to the one that this OP was about, which was also published in October. . . .
Somehow, I feel the publication of these two articles, from different teams, using different theories, about the same general issue, is more than coincidence (queue X Files theme). — Wayfarer
The alternative perspective of the SFI is Holism, the key to emergence of complex physical & meta-physical systems. Yet, as you well know, the notion of Integrated Whole Systems is often met with knee-jerk negativity by those who are prejudiced against, what they label as, a "New Age" worldview. FWIW, I am, in no meaningful sense, a disciple of New Age gurus. And my philosophical thesis is intended to be a post-quantum-science update of the worldwide Spiritualism of pre-scientific ancient cultures. But, I am sympathetic to it's generalizing, inclusive, and comprehensive philosophical perspective*3, which is literally non-scientific (non-reductive), but not anti-science (opposed to scientific methods)*4.
A related article is entitled : How Purposeless Physics underlies Purposeful Life*5. How did inert Matter (momentum) manage to become self-motivated (purposeful)? Such "how" or "why" questions shine a spotlight into the gap to be filled by a Missing Law of Complexification in Evolutionary Theory. Darwin proposed two requirements for the emergence of biological novelty : Variation & Selection. But, the latter is a negative, weeding-out, action*6. And, the positive production of novel forms is unexplained by the laws of physics. So, the source of variation & complexification may await a 21st century law of evolution. Hence, the need for something like Assembly Theory.
Is this confluence of science & philosophy a coincidence, or a conspiracy? :cool:
*1. Assembly Theory :
Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open-ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9
Note --- The term "design blueprint" in connection with Evolution, is a trigger-word to those for whom "design"*5 is a taboo notion, associated with monotheistic religions. Unfortunately, my information-based term EnFormAction is also booed & tabooed by those who believe in the creativity of random accident.
*2. Sara Imari Walker is an American theoretical physicist and astrobiologist with research interests in the origins of life, astrobiology, physics of life, emergence, complex and dynamical systems, and artificial life. ___Wikipedia
*3. What is complexity science theory? :
Complexity science suggests that the whole is not the sum of the parts. Emergent properties of the whole are inexplicable by the parts. In complexity, studies of natural and human systems are explained by both kinds of analysis - micro (or analysis of the parts) and macro (or holistic analysis).
https://www.napcrg.org/media/1278/beginner-complexity-science-module.pdf
*4. Complexity Science :
Our traditional views of cause-and-effect assume a linear worldview in which the output of a system is proportional to its input. This predictable perspective derives from an additive model in which the system is the sum of its parts.
https://www.napcrg.org/media/1278/beginner-complexity-science-module.pdf
*5. Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer :
" Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized." ___Francisco Ayala, evolutionary biologist
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
*6. Natural selection works by weeding less fit variants out of a population.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/the-bad-gene/
-
Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?those advocating Empirical Philosophy, typically define Metaphysics as religious nonsense. — Gnomon
Thanks. I had never heard of "Constructive Empiricism". CE sounds like a good policy for Practical Scientists : "to refrain from making metaphysical commitments about the reality of unobservable entities". The old "refrain" of "shut-up and calculate" seems like a similar pragmatic attitude toward impractical scientists who dabble in the Meta-Physical aspects of Quantum Physics --- sometimes mis-labeled as "Quantum Mysticism"*1 --- but are actually "abstract" & "unobservable" entities & forces, and open questions about Being & Reality.That’s more characteristic of positivism, really. There is a school of thought called ‘constructive empiricism’. Constructive empiricism is a philosophical perspective on the nature of scientific theories proposed by Bas van Fraassen in his 1980 book "The Scientific Image." It contrasts with scientific realism in important ways. Scientific realism holds that science aims to give us true descriptions of the world, including unobservable phenomena. Constructive empiricists, on the other hand, argue that the goal of science is not to find true theories, but rather to develop theories that are empirically adequate. . . .
it simply refrains from making metaphysical commitments about the reality of unobservable entities. — Wayfarer
I made-up the descriptive term "Empirical Philosophy" to refer to posters on this forum, who do not "refrain from making metaphysical commitments". When they accuse me of avoiding the traditional referent of "metaphysics", from Catholic Metaphysics*2 (4th - 5th centuries AD) ; I typically point back to an even older antecedent of the term, in Aristotle's (5th century BC) encyclopedia of Nature. The section of his documents, that later came to be labeled "metaphysics"*3, was literally placed "after" the documentation about the physical world. And it discussed non-physical & abstract topics that distinguished Greek Philosophy from both Material Nature, and from Greek Religions. Philosophy is not a science of Things, but of Ideas. "Meta-Physics" is not about mysticism, but about the "unobservable", but inferrable, underpinnings of Nature.
I haven't been successful in convincing the "Empirical Philosophy" posters, such as , to look past Augustine & Aquinas to the man who literally wrote the book. Being a non-religious naturalist, Aristotle is harder to pin the "mystical" label on. So they mis-direct the thread toward a well-known taboo of science, in order to avoid dealing with the philosophical ideas I'm actually talking about. When I post about Quantum Physics, I'm referring to its philosophical implications, not to its physical facts. But it's easier to apply prejudicial Straw-Man labels, such as "New Age", than to argue non-empirical abstract concepts and "unobservable entities", such as those raised by the quantum pioneers of invisible subatomic physics. Such distracting labels don't prove anything, except blind prejudice. :smile:
*1. Quantum mysticism :
Before the 1970s the term was usually used in reference to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, but was later more closely associated with the purportedly pseudoscientific views espoused by New Age thinkers such as Fritjof Capra and other members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, who were influential in popularizing the modern form of quantum mysticism. . . . .
Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics, were interested in Eastern mysticism, but are not known to have directly associated one with the other. In fact, both endorsed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
*2. Catholic Metaphysics :
The Marginalization of Metaphysical Thinking . . . .
The most powerful intellectual movement during the last two centuries has been the Enlightenment Project. The Enlightenment Project comprises both the view known as scientism, namely, that science is the whole truth about everything and that it is the ground of its own legitimation, as well as the program to transcend the human predicament by gaining complete technological mastery of the physical and social environment. It is a project that was originally formulated by French philosophes in the last half of the eighteenth century, was preserved by positivist movements in the nineteenth century, and has dominated universities in the twentieth century. . . . .
What room is there for metaphysics in such a view? The only version of metaphysics permissible is secular Aristotelian naturalism.
https://metanexus.net/catholic-metaphysics-wake-collapse-enlightenment/
*3. Metaphysics (Aristotle) :
The work is a compilation of various texts treating abstract subjects, notably substance theory, different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects and the cosmos, which together constitute much of the branch of philosophy later known as metaphysics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle) -
Quantum Physics, Qualia and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein: How Do Ideas Compare or Contrast?
I think you have touched on the antithetical Frames of Reference that divide many of the posters on this forum : Empirical vs Theoretical (metaphysical) Philosophy and Theoretical vs Empirical (physical) Science. Adherents of those disparate worldviews find it difficult to communicate with their opposite number. They speak mutually unintelligible dialects of the same language*1, because they approach "Reality" from different directions (presumptions) as noted by Joshs in the quotes below*2*3.Philosophy and physics come at the issue from separate perspectives. A key point of philosophy, I would assert, is that it is grounded in rational contemplation of the human condition. It ought not to overly rely on science, except perhaps insofar as scientific discoveries impact the human condition. But Wittgenstein himself said that “even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.” — Wayfarer
I am totally ignorant of Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy, but your quote seems to hit the same presumptive nail on its convictional creedal head. Ironically, those advocating Empirical Philosophy, typically define Metaphysics as religious nonsense. On the other head, I have asked several posters who seek empirical evidence to support philosophical conjectures, "why are you posting on a Philosophical Forum?" They are typically scornful of my references to Metaphysics and Essences, which apparently don't exist in their worldview, except as examples of Antiscience babble. So, where can we obtain a Babble-fish*4 to translate for us? Are you available for that multilingual job? :joke:
*1. There's a saying from the days of England's great war-time leader Sir Winston Churchill in which he describes the United States and his own country as being two nations "divided by the same language."
*2. "they show the empirical sciences what is hidden to them in their own naive assumptions." —
*3. " Its self-evidence lacks scientific grounding in the universal life-world a priori, which it always presupposes in the form of things taken for granted, which are never scientifically, universally formulated, never put in the general form proper to a science of essence"
*4. What is the Babelfish ?
Adams' novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy features the Babel Fish, “probably the oddest thing in the universe” (Adams 60), which gives its host the ability to “instantly understand anything said…in any form of language”
https://www.scienceandfiction.fiu.edu/library-of-babel-fish
BABELFISH with optional BS detector (gas bladder)
-
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Sorry for the confusion. I was groping for a polite way to make "sense" of an erroneous assertion by ↪unenlightened : that "Information is Entropy". I noted that it's a common misunderstanding, but one that might reveal a novel way to look at the antithetical relationship between Information and Entropy*1. Those terms are not equal, but opposite in meaning. Instead, Information is equal to Negentropy*2.Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning... — Gnomon
Gnonsense. — wonderer1
So, I re-interpreted Shannon's definition of Information in terms of 1s & 0s, as a reference to Bookends, not the Books ; Carrier of meaning, not the Content. Unfortunately, my groping attempt to describe that unfamiliar & unconventional perspective may sound like "Gnonsense", because it is literally Unorthodox, Atypical, and Eccentric. Maybe, over time, I will be able to find a more Gnomeaningful way to express that contradiction. :joke:
*1. In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. ___Wikipedia
Note --- 100% and 0% quantities of Information are not "averages", but Extremes. Which I referred to metaphorically as "Brackets" or "Bookends".
*2. Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
*3. Quote from a previous post to trying to untangle the babble :
Thermodynamics doesn't deal with Uncertainty, but merely the normal range of temperatures between Planck Heat & Absolute Zero. Yet, Information was defined in terms of a relative position between absolute Certainty and absolute Ignorance. Both mathematically idealized thermal states are devoid of "Difference", being All or Nothing. Anything outside that natural range would be super-naturally Certain. — Gnomon
INFORMATION IS IN THE MIDRANGE, NOT THE EXTREMES
-
Proposed new "law" of evolution
Yes. Darwin's theory was limited to Biological systems, and he could only guess about some unknown means for communicating information from one generation to another, and one species to another : what we now know as "Genes". So, his theory of how animals & plants evolve was long overdue for a scientific update.A missing law to be added to Darwin's theory? Darwin's theory was made in 1859 and is outdated... Darwin didn't even know about genes, we've unraveled so many other mechanisms for evolution since then, such as genetic drift, gene flow, mutations,... — Skalidris
Ironically, this new "law" is an addition to Physical systems ("classical laws of motion, gravity, electromagnetism, and energy") and also to Meta-physical systems ("We identify universal concepts of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—that underpin function and drive systems to evolve through the exchange of information between the environment and the system.") The latter are not physical/material things, but merely "Patterns" & "Configurations" and Memes that are not Perceived, but Conceived.
Note --- Quotes above are from the PNAS paper, proposing a "New Law" or Principle of progressive change in natural systems. -
Proposed new "law" of evolution
That is a common misinterpretation of Shannon's definition of Information, in terms of abstract mathematics, not of human vocabulary. As I attempted to describe in a post above, Shannon bracketed the meaningful realm of Information mathematically, within a broad range of possibilities from [100% to 0% (White or Black pixels) ] (typically expressed as "1/0" {all or nothing})*1. But the meaningful information is limited to the [something] range between {99% and 1%} : shades of gray.Information here is a synonym for entropy. — Nils Loc
Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning, for interpretation by our imperfect analog minds. Hence, Information is a synonym for "Knowledge" & "Intelligence" & "Negentropy" (the opposite of Entropy).
Secret "codes" are unintelligible, until interpreted by the receiver. So, Shannon developed an automatic method for "breaking" the code, via standardized rules*3. :nerd:
*1. What is the Shannon theory of information entropy?
Shannon considered various ways to encode, compress, and transmit messages from a data source, and proved in his famous source coding theorem that the entropy represents an absolute mathematical limit on how well data from the source can be losslessly compressed onto a perfectly noiseless channel.
___ Wikipedia
*2. Negentropy :
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. Out of all distributions with a given mean and variance, the normal or Gaussian distribution is the one with the highest entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
Note --- Normal distribution (average) lacks the "Difference that makes a Difference" that we know as "Meaning" for the human Receiver of data. For a computer, the meaning does not matter.
*3. Encoded Information :
In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code
Binary Code :
Does this series if 1s & 0s (computer language) mean anything to you?
If not, then it's Entropic (zero information) compared to natural language text.
Gnomon
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum