I want to make a couple of points about this. The first is a reference to the Copenhagen Intepretation of quantum physics. According to it, the object of analysis of an experiment does not exist until it is measured or observed ('no phenomena is a phenomena until it is an observed phenomena' ~ Neils Bohr.) But a corollary of this was that it was incorrect to say that the object did not exist until it was observed. Rather, nothing could be said about it, until it was observed. — Quixodian

Yes. As I understand it, the Copenhagen Interpretation was not about Idealism, but about Holism. The particle that suddenly appears upon "collapse" of the superposed statistical state did not just materialize from thin air. Instead its statistical (mathematical) existence is Potential, and its collapsed existence is Actual.

For example, a Holistic system -- such as a galaxy of stars -- appears as a Nebula (cloud) from a distance, and its component stars are bound into a system by mutual gravitational attraction. As long as the gravitational field is stable, none of the stars can move independently. Likewise, an Atom is a cloud of particles that act holistically and display collective properties. But when an atom-smasher destroys the system, each sub-atomic particle moves off on its own trajectory, defined by its own properties. When bound into the atom, each electron only has a statistical existence. It's in there, but undetectable until Actualized by the "collapse" (mathematical state to physical state) of the atomic system.

Aristotle probably had nothing like the modern concept of Electrons or Galaxies, but he saw a need to distinguish Potential existence from Actual being.


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

I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. — Quixodian

Sorry, I persist in giving you credit for more explanatory powers than your modest evasion would imply.

Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping)

That would make sense to me if he had said "in my world model". But the quote sounds like the counter-intuitive Idealist notion that there is no objective "real" world out there, only a subjective "ideal" model in symbolizing minds. Hence, Idealism seems to use the word "exist" differently from the usual objective meaning. Perhaps, "to be" from God's cosmic perspective vs "being" as seen from my local point of view.

Pinter goes on to note that "commonsense wisdom holds the opposite view : it holds that facts exist in the universe regardless of whether anyone notices them . . ." That is indeed my own sense of the word "to exist" : being a thing in the territory prior to becoming noted in a map. Is that disparity between "commonsense" existence and "idealistic" existence defined in the literature of Idealism? Is there a more accurate term of being to distinguish between Noumenal existence versus Phenomenal extant?

I understand that things don't exist for me --- in my imaginary world model --- until I have named them with a label attached to a personal meaning. However, my "commonsense" model of reality includes animals of the canine species, even before any human had named that type of animated matter as "canus" or "dog". For example, I assume that there were large ruminants --- that we now call "moose" roaming the American continent long before the so-called Indians migrated into their territory, and labeled that species as "moosu" (twig-eater).

Are Idealists, like Pinter & Kastrup, saying that there was no such thing (fact) as a Moose --- in the mind-independent world --- until a classifying human mind realized its existence? Pinter says that "the mind-independent world is not naturally divided into individual parts". Yet Plato's notion of "carving nature at its joints" seems to assume that the division into parts pre-existed the carving by a mind. Am I missing something here?

Even though my Information-centric world-model is similar in some ways to Platonic Idealism, it does not deny the existence of human-mind-independent Reality. Instead, it attempts to "explain the existence of the world" in terms of shape-shifting Forms that are (exist) both real and ideal, both Phenomenal and Noumenal. Does that notion of straddling the subjective & objective worlds make any sense to you? :smile:



BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create thing-beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The philosopher is mostly a dunce in the eyes of a world “assured of certain certainties.” — plaque flag

Historically, some professional philosophers have been known to pontificate : to speak from authority, but in complex abstruse esoteric language. That's why my indirect & superficial introduction to Postmodern philosophy sounded more like legalistic Sophistry, than Socrates faux humility "know nothing" set-up.

Unfortunately, some people want to get their wisdom cheap & revealed to them, pre-packaged, by wiser heads, in cryptic words that will make the dummy seem to be an authority. But then there are those (Trumpers) who merely want to be told --- in no uncertain terms --- what they already believe. So, who's the dunce here? :smile:

Pontificate : express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic

Anti-Sophistry :
"And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, – that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know".
Note that here Socrates does not say that he knows “nothing.” Instead, he says that he does know “little.” The main point is not that he wants to glorify ignorance, but to expose those who pretend to know things that they don’t. ___Socrates
https://daily-philosophy.com/quotes-socrates-knowing-nothing/

As I understood it via Bernando Kastrup, all of reality emanates from the mind of God and this allows for apparent object permanence and the regularities of nature. — Tom Storm

I'm currently reading the 2021 book by Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things. He seems to be an Idealist, but unlike Plato or Berkeley, he bases his idealistic interpretation of Reality on scientific evidence ; especially the non-classical (non-mechanical) notions of Quantum Physics.

For example, he says, echoing Donald Hoffman, that "we are biologically designed to believe that what we see is Reality with a capital R". Then he notes that "the 'cup in itself' -- the real teacup in the unobserved physical world -- consists of atoms & charged particles, and 'appearance' is not a force of physics". What he's referring to is the world as described by physicists probing the sub-atomic foundations of the physical world. What they report is something to the effect that atoms are fuzzy-fluff-balls of invisible energy. And each atom is like a star, whirling through empty space, connected to other atoms only by links of invisible attractive forces, like gravity. Hence, we perceive them only en masse (as a whole system), just as clouds are merely swarms of microscopic water particles as seen collectively from a distance. Hence, he concludes that "objectively the unobserved universe is formless and featureless" : like a fog.

Although I haven't reached the concluding chapter, so far Pinter doesn't seem to use the metaphor of the "Mind of God" to represent the ultimate reality. He does occasionally refer to a "mind-independent world", but that merely indicates the obvious fact that the Cosmos consists of more than a single human perspective. Yet that could imply that we collectively create the world, or that we each perceive a fraction of the whole world as created by some enigmatic cosmic mind. Similarly, Kastrup*1 sometimes uses the German term "alter" (elder ; other ; father ; dude)*2 to label a mysterious feeling of connection to some higher power. :smile:


Reality is not what it seems :
The idea that reality is fundamentally thought, consciousness, or an idea, as opposed to physical matter, atoms, or particles, is becoming more main stream. The many problems with scientific materialism are finally coming home to roost. But this does not mean reality just is how it appears to be in our own private consciousness of it, writes Bernardo Kastrup.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not-what-it-seems-auid-2312

Alter :
An alter is a “dissociation” of a part of the universal mind from the whole. A bit like monads
https://neuroself.wordpress.com/kastrup-bernardo/

So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1. — Gnomon
Does defining one's terms work in reality? The logic of what a term refers to, and the interpretation of that logic is at the heart of philosophy, and language. If someone offers an understanding of a concept you don't agree with, it makes sense to dispute it, doesn't it? — Judaka

Sure. But rational dialog must follow from a clear understanding of how ambiguous words are intended to be applied. When those words are not made specific, what follows is usually emotional "dispute" based on a misunderstanding. The same word can be interpreted differently from the speaker's and hearer's perspective. Don't you agree? :smile:

Dialog : a calm exchange of ideas and opinions

Dispute : a passionate disagreement, argument, or debate.

But (to be fair), the timebinding cultural aspect of the self, largely its linguistic aspect, is a graveleaping ghost. Metaphorically speaking, this or that individual body is its temporary host. — plaque flag

Poetically expressed. But I'm not sure what you are implying. "Graveleaping ghost" sounds like reincarnation. I've seen that notion portrayed fictionally in movies : for example a man's soul gets transplanted into a woman's body, and has to learn to deal (comically) with the different physicality of its new host. But I'm not aware of any real-world souls escaping the flesh prison, and taking up residence in some other soul's body. Such ideas make amusing fiction & fantasy, but is there a factual basis? Is my soulful dog the new body of an expired blues musician? If so, how would I know?

Of course cultural immortality is a common way to speak of a writer's or artist's mind, as incarnated in objective forms, continuing to "live-on" in the minds of other embodied souls. But such an unexperienced "life" may be cold comfort to the dead or disembodied soul, with no sensory organs plugged into the non-self system. :smile:

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
― Woody Allen

Subjectivity is meaningless apart from embodiment in an environment. — plaque flag

Yes. We humans reify our own subjective perspective with the noun label "Self". Since the Self exists invisibly & implicitly inside a vehicle of mud matter, we have no cause to worry about its substance or provenance : the Self is simply Me, and always has been. Moreover, my embodiment is known directly via internal perception (proprioception -- the sense of self-ownership).

What is cause for questioning though is other beings that behave as-if they know what they are doing (self-awareness). Yet, we don't know what is going on inside that other animal, so we cannot experience its self-sensation or self-concept first-hand. But, we can reason that, due to superficial similarities in flesh & behavior, the other body must also possess a motivating Self : a source of causal Will power, to move & guide the body toward its own self-interest within the non-self environment.

Acknowledgement of that other Self/Soul obligates us to treat its mud-made apparatus as-if it too represents an invisible Subjective experiencer of objective Reality. Thus the moral rule of "do unto other selves as-if they are your-own-self". Morally, the immaterial sensing Self is more important than the animated body, but since the essence is dependent upon the substance, we have no alternative to treating Body & Self as a unique composite entity : matter/life, brain/mind.

However, we learn from scientific experience that dissection of a frog results in cessation of froginess. So, we induct a general rule that body/self is an integrated system, with holistic qualities (Life & Mind) that don't exist, in any meaningful sense, in the isolated body parts. The matter is still there, but where did the mind, self, soul disappear to? The Body without the Self is simply meaningless meat. Yet, some imagine that the meat is the more important partner in the Game of Life. :smile:

PS___But important to whom : the Self, the Body, or the Other?

I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. But do consider the Buddhist approach, which doesn't begin with the origin of everything, but with the origin of suffering (dukkha). — Quixodian

I see. When I read your remark about not needing a genesis hypothesis, I was reminded of Laplace's well-known rejoinder that his mathematical Science intentionally avoided any supernatural theories*1. Hence, my questions about alternative theories of origins --- other than "it is what it is". In the year 1784, Laplace could reasonably assume that the logical structure of the material world just exists eternally, with no need for an origin story. But today, our sky-watching scientists have inadvertently reopened the original can of worms, with their mathematical evidence for a time with no time or space --- nothing to measure. Thus, raising philosophical "why?" questions, where Laplace only saw practical "how?" questions.

Although I respect your Buddhist avoidance of vexing ultimate metaphysical questions --- focusing instead on proximate reflective Psychology --- my own approach to philosophy is closer to Cosmology than to Theology. So, I wasn't thinking in terms of traditional pre-scientific magic myths to explain how we came to be sentient beings in a world of both suffering and flourishing. Instead, I'm intrigued by the failure of scientists to devise plausible explanations for the contingent existence of the world. Multiverse & Many Worlds & Inflation theories merely assume, as did Laplace, that the temporal material world just-is (Nontology?), needing no further elucidation.

But philosophy is all about such imponderables, taking nothing for granted. So, for me, it's just a question of impractical curiosity : "Why" questions are about Purpose & Causation & Reason. Any answer to such queries is not likely to end the suffering of sentient creatures*2, but it allows us to scratch the itch of observations without reasons ; just irksome never-ending ellipsis . . . . .

For example, why not accept sensory Phenomena as-is, without grasping for extra-sensory Noumena? The elusive butterfly of imagination. Pragmatic scientists may be satisfied with naming what meets the eye, but philosophers are tantalized by what is not apparent, but seems to be logically necessary. For example, an on-going physical world without an initial impetus to impart momentum. Is without ought.

I doubt that conjuring hypothetical explanations for the existence of the world is beyond your capacity. It's just a story to give meaning to the ellipsis. What's hard is actually conjuring a world from nothing. How could that happen? My un-scientific hypothesis begins with "let there be information (logic, form, causation)". :smile:



*1. Laplace's Mathematical World :
"a famous statement by the French mathematician Laplace is constantly misused to buttress atheism. On being asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical work, Laplace, quite correctly, replied: 'Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.' Of course God did not appear in Laplace's mathematical description of how things work, just as Mr. Ford would not appear in a scientific description of the laws of internal combustion. But what does that prove? That Henry Ford did not exist? Clearly not. Neither does such an argument prove that God does not exist. Austin Farrer comments on the Laplace incident as follows:'Since God is not a rule built into the action of forces, nor is he a block of force; no sentence about God can play a part in physics or astronomy ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Laplace.html

*2. How do animals deal with suffering?
In simpler animals with small numbers of neurons, such signals activate behaviors through reflex actions that are tuned to escape or defend against harm. In larger-brained animals, things get considerably more complicated.
https://www.aaas.org/why-do-animals-experience-suffering
Note -- In humans, we often treat our suffering by thinking about something else. Psychogenic pain can be ameliorated by "going to your happy place". Meditation & Prayer may be means of avoiding conscious awareness of suffering, by distracting attention from bodily sensations to dis-embodied imagination. Temporarily insentient.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka

As others have noted, umbrella terms are generalizations that lump together ideas that have some properties in common. And ancient philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle, may be best known for categorizing disparate ideas under broad headings, via Induction : one word to rule them all. Since those pioneers did the heavy lifting, most lesser lights have spent much of their time trying to break-down those generalizations into specific instances, via Deduction. Hence, the application of Philosophy we now call "Science". So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1.


*1. Umbrella Terms :
a word or phrase used as a unifying term under which a group of specific and related things, words, phrases, subjects, or functions belongs
___Dictionary.com

In Berkeley's case, the only qualification required is that God sustains the Universe in existence, although personally I have no need of that hypothesis. — Quixodian

If you have no need for the God hypothesis, how do you explain the contingent existence of the space-time world, that appears to have a singular point of beginning into being? The cosmic clock seems to be ticking down to the ultimate Entropy of non-existence. Do you assume that the physical universe --- which we temporal humans perceive into conceptual being --- is actually self existent : requiring no external percipient (creator) to begin & sustain its beingness?

Apparently, Materialists assume that the world, or Multiverse, "just is", without any need for an external cause or perceiver. But, Charles Pinter, in his chapter on Reality, refers to it as the "mind-made firmament". Apparently, the mind is constrained by the organization of the brain to perceive the world in terms of Substance & Form. Yet, he goes on to say that "we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that every material object has substance and form . . . . Once again, we are misled by common sense".

From that perspective, Materialism is simply common sense. Likewise, I would infer that the Flat Earth notion is common sense. We see, with our normally reliable eyes, that the Earth stretches out horizontally in all directions. And its topological curvature is not apparent from a viewpoint near the surface. Hence, it's a disk, not a sphere.

On the other hand, Pinter seems to view Idealism as un-common intelligence. Our mind-made concepts allow us to see the logical structure underlying the superficial substance of objects, and to imagine an objective perspective different from that of our own earth-bound eyes. Even so, Pinter says "the material universe outside the purview of any observer has no such thing as form"*1. Then he notes, "we imagine the universe as if we were looking at it, and find it is very hard to picture a reality in which we are totally absent".

That may be why Berkeley had to imagine an as-if scenario, with a super-human observer who could see the Cosmos from the outside, in its totality ; perhaps as a sphere seen from a 4D perspective, from all sides simultaneously. Physically, it might look like a shining star radiating energy in all directions; or an invisible black hole sucking-up all available energy; or just a featureless gray sphere. Yet, the super-objective Observer is not just perceiving the world, but also conceiving it into existence ; complete, down to the last quark.

Did I mis-understand the implication of your assertion, that "I have no need of that hypothesis". Other than the traditional creation event, or self-existent Reality, the only alternative theory I can imagine is that each of us imaginative Idealists is a world creator --- forming a unique world as a "mind-made firmament"*3. Yet, like sociable deities, we like to share our art-works with other gods. Not directly mind-to-mind though, but over the internet. :smile:

PS___Perhaps, once begun on its trajectory through time, what "sustains" the world is simply Momentum. But what abstains the world is Entropy. So, we have no need for the religious word "sustains". :joke:


*1. Form : "an object's form is an aspect of the object as an undivided whole, viewed from outside the object" -----Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order

*2. To Conceive : form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind. ___Oxford

*3. How We Create Our Reality :
It’s not pseudo-science: you’re already doing it.
I create reality by taking an idea in my mind and bringing it into existence.
https://medium.com/an-idea/how-we-create-our-reality-7fc29fc899c

And without that observing self, which is never amongst the objects being observed, nothing whatsoever exists. — Quixodian

Berkeley's bold assertion, "esse est percipi", did not make sense, without some qualification. For example, as someone noted above : "the universe appears to have existed for 10 million years before the emergence of any perceiving creature". If so, in what sense can we say that anything --- say a 20 million year old rock on an uninhabited planet in a distant galaxy --- exists? Who or what is the percipient?

Is physical Existence*1 a necessary essence or a contingent attribution*1? If the latter, then Berkeley's observing God-in-the-quad*2 is a logically necessary inference, to explain the beingness of anything & everything in our world model. Hence, for anything contingent to exist in space-time Reality, something self-existent, perhaps in timeless Ideality, is obligatory. That mysterious absolute being is what insightful humans call "God". But how can we know that the named concept*3 exists, if we can't perceive anything existing without the limiting conditions of physics?

Physicists have inferred the existence of sub-sub-atomic particles called "quarks". They even envision families of invisible intangible Quarks, and assign necessary properties to those imaginary objects, that are not perceptible even by cutting-edge technology. We only know they exist fundamentally, because they must be there, to logically support all other aspects of our physical world-model. But, do they exist as percepts, or as concepts, or as metaphysical objects? In what sense does a Noumenon exist? Is conceptual existence real being? :smile:


*1. To Exist : have objective reality or being.
Note --- To Perceive is to attribute subjective being. Hence, objective existence must be inferred, not observed.


*2. Berkeley Limericks :

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully, God

If objects depend on our seeing
So that trees, unobserved, would cease tree-ing,
Then my question is: Who
Is the one who sees you
And assures your persistence in being?

Dear Sir,
You reason most oddly.
To be's to be seen for the bod'ly.
But for spirits like me,
To be is to see.
Sincerely,
The one who is godly.

http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

*3. The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
https://researchers.usask.ca/gordon-sarty/documents/tao.html

Bottom Line: Did George Berkeley mean that the existence of the entire world was dependent upon human perception, or divine perception? — charles ferraro

I'm not an expert on such esoteric questions, but my rather naive interpretation of "esse est percipi" means just the opposite of Solipsism : "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist". Apparently he was merely stating the underlying assumption of traditional Idealism : that we observers are merely ideas, concepts, Forms, avatars in the mind of God (or LOGOS for Plato ; or the Universe Game for players). In other words, we humans, including bodies, are merely instances of universal Mind : parts of the whole ; chips off the old block. Is that hubris or modesty? Can we prove our claimed patrimony? Can the part question the Whole?

Both Self-image and God-image are imaginary concepts in your mind, not empirical objects. But, which came first : the Causal Principle or the Actual Effect ; the universal-eternal Creator or the local-temporal Conceiver? I guess that depends on your opinion of the reality/ideality/necessity of Eternity/Infinity to explain Space-Time and Consciousness. The computed answer is "42". :smile:

Mind of God :
Plato thought that forms (which he called Ideas) exist in a realm of their own. However, Aristotle considered that forms only exist in so much as they are instantiated in the things they inform. St Augustine, taking a basically Platonic point of view, placed the realm of the Ideas in the mind of God. In this question, Aquinas attempts to reconcile the teaching of St Augustine concerning Ideas in the mind of God with an Aristotelian metaphysical framework.
http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2010/05/question-15-ideas-in-mind-of-god.html

— The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects. — HarryHarry

I'm not familiar with the principles of Huna, or with the notion of Chaos Magic. But, I long ago, realized that one feature common to all forms of magic --- Taro cards, divination, astrology, incantations, alchemy, sorcery, spirit mediation --- is dependence on confusing the rational mind with chaos, or misdirection, of some kind.

For example, those who read tea leaves or animal entrails are seeing random/chaotic patterns, which allow the imagination to create its own designs. The freedom from structure allows the mind to rearrange old beliefs to suit new or future situations. Magical interpretations are usually expressed in the vocabulary of commonly held beliefs/superstitions, such as ghosts & fates. :smile:


Chaos magic teaches that the essence of magic is that perceptions are conditioned by beliefs, and that the world as we perceive it can be changed by deliberately changing those beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic

But Kant only introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to the world as it is independently of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. — Quixodian

I'm still reading Charles Pinter's book, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . .. In his chapter on Realism, he distinguishes between "direct realism" (naive realism) --- which equates the world with the appearances created by the mind to represent physical features --- and philosophical realism --- which is supposed to be more self-aware, taking into account the observer's contribution to reality. Presumably, Direct Realism & Materialism ignore the Me in the middle of the sensation/cognition equation.

That's the same conclusion quantum physicists came to when they discovered that the expectations & presumptions of the observer seemed to have some effect on the transformation of holistic entanglement into the particular objects of sub-atomic reality. John A. Wheeler called it the "observer effect"*1. Since such self-consciousness was not allowed in the objective/reductive scientific method, they turned to Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism) for ways to account for the meddling man-in-the-middle.

The Buddha advised his followers to seek true reality by ignoring the mis-interpreting Self. He referred to "pure" & "impure appearances". He seemed to presume that intro-spection was more pure than extro-spection. Quakers, sitting quietly in church, are also seeking the Inner Light, that presumably comes directly from God. We may get closer to "pure" Truth by quieting the constantly processing brain. But do we really commune with God, or with our naive (child-like) model of reality?

Pinter said Kant "claimed that what we experience is never the thing in itself, but always as it is represented in our mind". It's the observer's self-interest that muddles our "impure" view of things-as-they-are from God's unbiased "pure" perspective. He also says "Kant was perhaps the first philosopher to draw a real distinction between properties which things have in themselves, and the experiences they produce in us". Empirical material properties are innate, but abstract essential qualia are attributed.

Pinter goes on to note that "the animal mind . . . envisions a world of features, aspects, and appearances, but those things don't exist outside the mind". Also, "without a living subject looking at a thing, it has no specific features, nothing it 'looks like' " {my bold} That observer effect may be what Nagel meant by his challenge to the Mind-Body problem : "What is it like to be a bat?" All minds take-in sensory information from the environment, then process & code the data into "cognitive" mental representations, that are meaningful to the observing Self.

On this forum, we often contrast Realism/Materialism with Supernaturalism/Idealism. But that black vs white dichotomy also overlooks the flesh & blood man-in-the-middle : the cogitating Brain/Self. Likewise, the Phenomena/Noumena polarity may miss the real world conjunction of Brain/Mind, which translates Real sensations into Ideal experiences. :smile:


*1. Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon", which is a very radical position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment

I have no problem with scientific philosophy. Physics, as you say, is half philosophy, half empirical. What floats my spiritual boat is God as forms. But words like God or Deus is not really important. When i see a lion, i can cognate ever deeper understanding of its nature and animality. There is some kind of dualism that seems nevessary within our consciousness — Gregory

I assume that your equation of God with Platonic Form*1 may imply A> a separate-but-equal dualism of Ideal & Real, or B> a hierarchical superior vs inferior or ultimate vs proximate Reality (Heaven vs Earth). My philosophical BothAnd*2 dualism has a similar motivation, in that it attempts to reconcile Physical Reality, consisting of material objects & causal forces, with Metaphysical Ideality, consisting of imaginary concepts in individual human minds. Yet for religious purposes, those notions are typically projected into a unitary universal Mind. Which may seem philosophically necessary, but beyond the bounds of science, hence unprovable.

However, that Ideality may or may not be actually a supernatural Platonic realm of perfect Forms, or ding an sich perfections in the Mind of God. As far as I can tell, those higher realms are imaginary, existing in individual human minds, hence opinions that must be accepted by faith in the myths we tell each other. The commonality of supernatural notions among mankind, may or may not indicate that there really is some mysterious Force or Form or Agent in the Great Beyond. So, we disagree on the exact nature (features) of the inferred Absolute Form or form-maker.

Despite the uncertainty, we like to think of Ideality as a super-reality --- more real than apparent Reality. For the purposes of my own "scientific philosophy", I sometimes use the concept of G*D metaphorically to represent the unknowable pre-BigBang source of the energy & laws that necessarily existed prior to space-time, in order to explain the HOW questions of the BB. However, since I have no direct channel of communication to that hypothetical Designer, I must remain agnostic about the WHY questions. That's also a Deistic philosophy. :smile:



*1. Plato's Theory of Forms :
In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/plato-theory-forms-realm-physical.html

*2. 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.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity), the whole of which our perceived reality is a part.
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. — Gnomon

Disagree. Going back to the pre-Kantian idea of noumena as ‘object of mind’, the noumenal might be understood as something nearer the original meaning of the idea, form or principle (bearing in mind that ‘form* *is nothing like* ‘shape’ :brow: ) The way that I interpret it (me, not Kant!) is in terms of principles that can only be grasped rationally, but which are independent of your or my particular mind. . . . . That’s why such principles are taken as subjective, or ‘in the mind’ - but they’re not in any individual mind. Bertrand Russell describes it exactly: ‘they are not thoughts, but when they are known they are objects of thought’. — Quixodian

Apparently you have a more nuanced definition of the terms "phenomena", noumena", "objective" and "subjective" than mine. As usual, you have a much greater mastery of philosophical literature than I do. My knowledge of Kant is superficial. So my usage of his terminology is more like common knowledge, and does not pretend to know the Mind of God. For me, "objective" is perceived Reality, while "subjective" is conceived Ideality.

So, when I classified Phenomena as objective, I merely meant that they are what we see (things or events out there) with our physical eyes : hence, Objective Percepts. But Noumena are what we know (in here) via our inner eye of reason (classification, categorization) : hence, Subjective Concepts. "Objective" is common knowledge ; "Subjective" is private knowledge.

Your interpretation of "noumenon" seems to be Platonic, in the sense of Eternal Transcendent Principles that are more real (ideal) than Temporal Physical Percepts (appearances). Mine was intended to be more down-to-earth and pragmatic.

Subjectively, I might think that my personal Ideas & Ideals are more perfect --- purged of the dross --- hence, closer to the true eternal essence (Form), than those of the common crowd. Others may disagree. :cool:


Percept : an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses
Concept : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

What is objective vs subjective? :
Here's a trick to help you remember the difference between subjective and objective. Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences. Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

Phenomenon synonyms : occurrence, event, happening, fact, experience, appearance, thing
Noumenon synonyms : concept, idea, essence, spirit, and substance. Other related terms include the metaphysical, the transcendent, and the ineffable.

Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory

Although I've never read any of his writings, I'm superficially familiar with Hegel, due to his prominence in modern philosophical discussions. But, I'm not qualified to speculate on his particular notion of "absolute" or "something infinite". On the other hand, this thread may not really be about Hegel's formulation, but about any unwarranted assumption of an extra-sensory "something infinite" underlying the 4-Dimension world we all know via the physical senses. FWIW, my personal opinion of Infinity is based more on scientific concepts than on philosophical theories.

Unlike impractical Philosophy, for its pragmatic purposes, empirical Science typically ignores infinities as mathematical nuisances. That's because Logical thought requires well-defined boundaries. However, modern Cosmology --- a hybrid of science & philosophy --- has not been able to dismiss the real possibility of "something" outside the rational brackets of space & time. Which may also be free from the limiting laws of physics, hence essentially Absolute. Anything unconditional may not play by the conventional rules of human Reason, though.

The Big Bang theory, although initially met with derision by some anti-creation Astronomers, is now as fundamental to Cosmology as Evolution is to Biology. Yet, "what had a beginning" implies a Creation event, and leaves open the child-like question of what caused the Bang, and set the initial conditions for evolution to expand on. That's why, In the 21st century, some theoretical Astrophysicists, lacking experimental evidence, have begun to explore a variety of pre-Bang scenarios mathematically, since empirical methods are useless for a place-beyond-Space and a time-before-Time.

For instance, Inflationary Universe theories instantaneously expanded in the literature, but the fervor now seems to have cooled. Likewise, serious Multiverse and Many Worlds proposals have become staples of Science Fiction, but not of practical Science. Yet, mathematical physicist Max Tegmark continues to develop his theory of an immaterial time-free Mathematical foundation of the Reality we observe with our space-time senses. But, for the most part, speculations on Infinity & Eternity have been left behind as playthings for feckless philosophers. . . . including yours truly.

That said, all I can say is that whatever-it-might-be, the "something infinite" is not likely to be a being in any empirical or anthro-morphic sense of existence. Which may be why the ancients conjectured about some imaginary immaterial forms of being : such as Souls & Spirits. And Pure Math, per Tegmark, may be a modern term for immaterial "spiritual" existence. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Those are abstractions that exist in rational minds, not in in the physical objects to which they are attributed. Hence, as ideal metaphysical concepts they are literally infinite ; not bound by the laws of physics.

However, mental abstractions do exist in some sense, don't they? Where is the realm of ideas? Plato postulated in his Theory of Forms, that they are timeless, absolute, and unchangeable. Likewise, my own notion of The Infinite, is built upon the concept of Form, defined as the active, determining principle of a thing. As we experience it in the 4D world, that Principle is equivalent to causal Energy plus defining Pattern/Code. I call it EnFormAction. But what is the ultimate Source of Guided Causation in the Real world? Frankly, I don't know. But, as an un-employed amateur philosopher, nothing in the world is keeping me from guessing about that mysterious "something" outside the world. :smile:


PS___My take-away from the philosophically floundering fact-free fairytales of Infinity is that it's a fool's errand. Yet, a philosophical forum is a fool's paradise. We can freely speculate without fear of consequences, except for derision by those defending fact-based belief systems such as Materialism & Realism. But ridicule is not a legitimate philosophical argument. So, "sticks & stones" . . . .


Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. . . . “Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/

Is the universe written in math?
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". . . . The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

It’s given as an example of a concept that is easy to grasp in principle, but is almost impossible to form or recognise an image of. In its context it was provided to illustrate the difference between concepts and mental images. But it also serves to illustrate the idea of ‘an object of mind’ i.e. you can understand it rationally even despite the difficulty of grasping its phenomenal depiction. — Quixodian

Your distinction between sensory Phenomena and mental Noumena, reminds me of a judicial distinction between observation and opinion : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"*1. That's similar to the difference between knowing an empirical fact, and feeling an emotional sentiment.

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. So there is no particular real-world referent for an amorphous ideal-world concept. As justice Potter pragmatically concluded, all we can do is point to several real world instances, from which the other person can construct her own hypothetical Noumenon from her personal experience. :smile:

PS__Empirical evidence is recognizable for anyone with a human sensorium. But to cognize a rational Principle requires a philosophical background. Principles are not real, but ideal.


*1. The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
Note -- A scene of two people behaving like rutting animals in polite company, may be literally porno-graphic, but "obscenity" is a generalization from many different instances in various circumstances, including personal mores of the observer & opinionator. It's the principle of the thing.

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
Can it have a referent?
Kant states that the noumenon is objectless (and also subjectless) beyond space, time and causality,
so how can there be any referent for "noumenon"?
if it is a concept, is it not then an object of thought? but if the noumenon is not an object, then we have contradicted ourselves... — jancanc

Perhaps, the "noumenon", that Kant distinguishes from a material object, is merely a mental concept (an idealization of the physical object). In Charles Pinter's book, subtitled How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . ., he discusses the human "sensorium" in great detail. He says that body & mind are engaged in a two-way dialog : the sensory organs transmit coded data (about an object) which the Mind (mental function of brain) interprets into self-relevant Meanings. As far as the idealistic Mind is concerned, the immaterial function (purpose ; meaning) of the object is more important than its material substance. Yet, the idea refers (points) back to the object, and the object reminds us of the idea.

The sensory Appearances represent the object in terms of feelings (sight, sound, touch). And that superficial portrayal is all we ever know for sure (empirically) about the "real" object. But the core meanings are like an X-ray : abstracting away the surface material, to reveal the logical Form within. That notional structure defines both its primary, and its possible, functions in the world. If the observer is astute enough, she will then know something about the essence of the object. It's that Ideal Soul of the thing that Kant refers to as the "noumenon", which is an immaterial belief about*2 the object in its perfect form.

When we talk about a thing (e.g. a ball point pen ; plastic & metal), we imagine its function relevant to the user. You can write an essay with it, or twirl it in your fingers. Those functional uses are not physical things, but possible processes that may be beneficial to the observer. Conceptually, they are the essence of penness, the noumenal referent of the word "pen".

Plato imagined a whole realm of perfect Ideal logical structures (ghosts of objects) separated from the messy mundane Real things of the phenomenal world of appearances. Ironically, all we flesh & blood humans ever know are those appearances (sensory impressions). But we can imagine a Platonic referent in an ideal noumenal world of essences. :smile:

PS__I apologize if this post is opaque. I just wanted to jot down some ideas for my own future reference.


*1. Noumenon :
(in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

*2. Aboutness refers to the central theme or conceptual logic of a referent object
Note -- Aboutness is a quality, it references an idea, not an object

While there are many forms of new materialism, Karen Barad’s agential realism is the first and most widely cited account. Barad is a physicist and philosopher who has updated Niels Bohr’s interpretation of the two slit experiment in quantum field theory and incorporated it into a model of material reality that re-thinks traditional notions of non-human material reality as well as human linguistic discourse in such as way as to dissolve distinctions between nature and culture, the real and the ideal. I am posting Barad’s ideas there because many of the discussions on the philosophy forum begin from one side or the other of such dualist divides between inside and outside, difference and identity. — Joshs

I was not acquainted with Barad's novel approach to reconciling Materialism with Idealism. But I am somewhat familiar with physicist (manhattan project) John A. Wheeler's notion of a Participatory Universe*1*2, where object & observer "intra-act", to use Barad's term. Dogmatic Materialists and Idealists may interpret the significance of that assertion by minimizing the contribution of the other side of the equation. But, I prefer to take a monistic BothAnd compromise : to accept that the world consists of both objects & agents, so Information passes in both directions ; in the form of Energy and Ideas. The dynamic system of intra-action includes both Nature & Culture. Humans don't literally create material Reality, but do participate in its creation as a concept. :cool:

*1. Wheeler :
It from bit. Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*2. Our Participatory Universe :
This agrees with Niels Bohr‘s suggestion to his students, at the end of a life-time of thinking about our quantum reality, that Man is inside the equation, simply by being there. Man is “entangled” in this “participatory universe”.
And so, it follows, as Wheeler asserted, that the “laws” of the functioning of the Universe (physics) make man’s participation in the flow of events – in the observable material reality – a given. And if that is true, then, it follows, that that participation leads to more “creation” (actions by man) which, as Wheeler put it, is new “information” added to the world (the observable reality) which gives rise to (more) physics (more material effects in the Universe).
https://medium.com/@tarek_osman/our-participatory-universe-ce640fed6585

I am glad that you raise the question of what happened to the historical Jesus, especially in regard to the resurrection. My own interest in uncovering the Grail tradition is in relation to this. It seems to be so important in understanding and disentangling facts and mythical ideas. The problem is so much literature, and trying to understand the historical agendas which are underlying them. — Jack Cummins

As far as I can tell, the historical Jesus was a mundane locally-focused Jewish Messiah candidate --- whose socio-political mission was limited to reviving the self-image of the sifted sediment of Abraham's seed, then living under the heel of yet another oppressive Gentile empire. In which case, it's possible that the flesh & blood Jesus had a child with Mary, as later mythologized in the Holy Grail legends. But it's also likely that --- due to his ignominious end --- his revival mission would have disappeared in the dust of history, like all the other Jewish messiahs of the era*1.

However, as a spiritual incarnation of the one & only super-human God, in the form of a world-conquering Christ, the notion of carnal knowledge with a worldly woman would have clashed with the glorious mystical myth that Rome wanted to propagate. So, I suspect that any documentation of his physical lineage would have been suppressed by the Roman Bible editors, whose official agenda might be to separate the noble Roman Christ from his humble Jewish roots.

On the other hand, some practical-minded people seem to prefer a romantic-but-plausible mundane myth over barely-believable other-worldly sublime fantasies. For example, the dual-god gnarly-gnostic Cathars may have promoted a more down-to-earth fable of Jesus as a real royal king, who founded a genetic Jewish dynasty, doomed to propagate on the margins of Imperial Rome*2. Like our modern-day video games, sometimes our gritty fairy-tale heroes battle the forces of Evil as muscular underdogs, rather than as super-heroes with divine powers. :smile:


*1. Many Messiahs :
. . . . making Jesus of Nazareth the most widely followed and most famous Jewish Messiah claimant in human history. Aside from Christians, Muslims also believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah but not the Son of God. Aside from the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth is allegedly mentioned by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews and by Tacitus in his Annals.
Several Jewish rebels and military leaders lived in the 1st century, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges, all of whom are only documented by Josephus in surviving accounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants

*2. What is the difference between Cathars and Catholics?
The main difference between Cathars and Catholics is their beliefs about creation. Catholics commonly understand the creation of the world to be good before it was corrupted, while Cathars believed that the world was created by an evil force.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/cathars-overview-history-beliefs-catharism.html

Barad says:
“In an agential realist account, matter does not refer to a fixed substance; rather, matter is substance in its intra-active becoming—not a thing but a doing, a congealing of agency. — Joshs

The quote from Barad's book does indeed sound as-if she is moving toward a middle position between Hard Mechanical Materialism and Soft Mental Idealism. This trend may be due to the undermining of classical Materialism by modern Quantum Physics, which is more mathematical than mechanical. Now, the sub-atomic "substance" of reality seems to be more an act of becoming, as an intangible waveform --- when observed --- "collapses" (i.e. transforms) into a measurable particle.

We, flesh & blood, humans still conceive of reality as-if it is a static thing instead of a dynamic process. Our senses typically paint a mental picture of reality that is a snapshot of a fleeting instant of ongoing change. That idealized image (merged into a movie) is what we sense as the material world. But, in reality, the ding an sich remains forever beyond the reach of our physical senses. Only our metaphysical imagination can "see" into the sub-atomic foundations of Reality. :smile:

Idea/ideal : Etymology. The word idea comes from Greek ἰδέα idea "form, pattern," from the root of ἰδεῖν idein, "to see."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
Note -- What we really "see" is our own ideas about reality.

Barad : In agential realism, realism is not about something substantialized and fixed or demarcated. Realism instead emphasizes that intra-active agentiality has real effects – effects that become ingredients in new and always also open-ended intra-active agencies.
https://dpu.au.dk/en/research/research-themes/all-themes/agential-realism-new-materialism
Note -- The "Agent" is the Observer who "measures" reality into snapshot concepts

Information Realism :
Artificial Intelligence researcher, Bernardo Kastrup, seems to be finding evidence to support the ancient philosophy of Idealism, which further weakens the equally venerable Atomic & Materialistic paradigms of modern science. He is the author of a book, The Idea of The World, which argues for the “mental nature of reality”, also known as “metaphysical realism” . In this article he discusses “information realism”, and begins by quoting physicist Max Tegmark, author of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. “For Tegmark, the universe is a ‘set of abstract entities with relations between them,’ . . . Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.” Kastrup then describes how reductive methods failed to find the definitive atom, and instead discovered only amorphous fields. “At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.”
. . . . But in the Quantum realm, scientific certainties get turned upside down. “Indeed, according to information realists, matter arises from information processing, not the other way around. Even mind—psyche, soul—is supposedly a derivative phenomenon of purely abstract information manipulation.” The notion of purely abstract information does not compute in a materialistic world.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html
Note -- Information Realism does not deny the feeling of reality that we get from interacting with the abstract fields around us. When we touch a tabletop, we don't feel the field, but merely the substantial surface implied by its resistance to penetration of the atomic force field.

Some of this may come down to scholarship, but it is likely that there are gaps here, which may reflect biases in theology, as well as the political aspects of the development of the Christian Church. This may say alot in itself, but it does make it hard to put the missing jigsaw pieces together coherently. — Jack Cummins

I'm not a scholar of religion, but I have some general ideas about how the Christian religion developed. For example : if Jesus had survived his crucifixion, Christianity, as we know it today, probably would never have emerged. Jesus seemed to intend only to revive the crumbling Jewish religion with messianic motivation. But after his death, other motives were promoted by some of his followers. Their ideas ranged from personalized synagogue Judaism, to nationalized temple Judaism, to monkish retreats like the Essenes, and to abstract philosophical thinkers such as the Gnostics.

However, the most important factor in spawning a completely new popular religion was the political power of the Roman Empire. It was emperor Constantine, who by imperial fiat converted a minor Jewish sect --- appealing mostly to the oppressed underclasses meeting in modest homes --- into a majestic imperial religion --- congregating in awe-inspiring sky-scraping gold-encrusted cathedrals. Then, in order to unify all the divided streams of Jesus/Judaism sectarianism, Roman church leaders surveyed the range of then current beliefs & practices --- circa 300 AD --- in order to compile a compendium Bible that would best serve the interests of an imperial religion, and a world-spanning state.

Of course, the compilers of an official, emperor authorized, canon of God's Word --- beginning with the council at Nicea --- had to include the writings & doctrines of Paul, who single-handedly spread his version of the Gospel throughout the Roman empire. They also included John, who spiritualized the mundane mission & message of Jesus to make his humiliating death seem to be a victory instead of a defeat. Thus, giving new life to a moribund messianic revolution, whose inspirational leader, failed to rise from the grave as expected. It also replaced the martyred semi-divine messiah, with a living human political leader, whose religious role was appropriated from the Roman pagan political appointee*1, who ruled over all the various, mostly idol-worshiping religions of the empire. But, they excluded those writings that advocated skepticism & independent thinking.

Thus an isolated localized minor religion was transformed into a worldwide bastion of orthodoxy, with a novel hybrid theology, combining elements from Paganism, Gnosticism, Judaism, among others. Which may explain how adherents of the thousands of modern Christian sects can all claim to be faithful to the same Hebrew God that Jesus represented on Earth. The jigsaw puzzle of Christianity is held together by their common faith in the myth of a God, who came down to Earth to save mankind from the ravages of another God, whose mission is to make human life a living Hell*2. :smile:


*1. Why do they call the pope the pontiff?
It comes from the Latin 'pontifex” meaning any high or chief priest, a link or bridge builder between the people and the Almighty. Julius Caesar was called pontifex maximus 40 years before Jesus was born. After the time of Christ, the ancient Roman church had a college of pontiffs.
https://www.wytv.com/news/daybreak/pope-or-pontiff-both-are-correct/

*2. Sympathy for the Devil
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice — Wayfarer

Most religions are also grounded on Praxis (Works), especially repetitive activities. For example, Islam's primary communal practice is synchronized prayer. Praxis may be the tie that binds individuals into social organisms. Christianity is unusual (in theory), due to its focus on private internal intellectual Faith, instead of public, communal, oxytosin-enhancing, activities. However, some Christians seem to use private prayer as a form of meditation, for self-improvement (e.g. gaining merit), as contrasted with social improvement, or collective bonding (belonging).

As a philosophical loner though, I "belong" to no empathetic & like-minded group. Hence, I am lacking in emotional support to solidify my adherence to an identifying creed. Would some kind of Praxis lead me to emotional or intellectual self-improvement (self-control), apart from the feeling of being one with a group of fellow practitioners (group control)? Can I be saved, philosophically, by cerebral intellectual Faith without physical emotional Works? Just musing! :joke:

PS__More seriously, I suppose my Practice of writing down my philosophical thoughts, and subjecting them to criticism, is a form of Praxis. Could that lead me to "modify my hypothesis to fit reality", or to "understand the world differently"?


What is the difference between praxis and practice? :
Practice is what those in the trades (like doctors, engineers, psychologists and musicians) do to modify their hypothesis to fit reality. More seriously: Praxis is usually used in the Hegelian and Marxist sense meaning action that works to change society.
https://www.quora.com/In-an-academic-context-what-is-the-difference-between-praxis-and-practice

What is the difference between Zen meditation and transcendental meditation? :
Mantra meditation and Zen meditation both differ from mindfulness. Mantra meditation, which encompasses transcendental meditation, involves repeating a phrase throughout the meditation practice. Zen meditation originates from Zen Buddhism and has the purpose of helping practitioners understand the world differently.
https://positivepsychology.com/differences-between-mindfulness-meditation/

There's something else, though. To truly penetrate or understand the nature of being (I prefer 'being' to 'reality' in this context) requires a re-orientation or a change to one's way of being - walking the walk. That is what philosophical praxis (distinct from theoria) requires. — Wayfarer

I suppose my philosophical journey is also focused more on the abstract "nature of being" than on "Reality", in the usual materialistic sense. But it's mostly a bloodless intellectual search for meaning, deficient in passionate pursuit. And that dispassionate quest is lacking any formal Praxis. I was never directly exposed to Hinduism or Buddhism in my youth. And while others of my generation were experiencing the joys of Hippie virtues, I was in southeast Asia "killing the little yellow man". I never personally killed anyone, but I suppose I had the cloaks of killers "laid at my feet". Philosophy was not part of my "being" until I retired from Reality, and had time to spare for Ideal pointless pursuits. :smile:

How did you add the "Reveals" to your post? I didn't know it was an option.

Quote :
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things...

Exercise! That require motivation. So, I exercise restraint in exercising. :joke:
1. "Repetition" : Sounds like prayer beads, which is not an element of my religious tradition.
2. "Attention" : That may be my weak point, due to a mild case of ADD
3. "Meditation" : Post-military, I went through a meditation phase while attending a super-liberal hippie-ish local Unity Church. I practiced what they called Alpha-Theta meditation, which was monitored by an EEG machine. I was able to peg the needle, but no big deal. I also tried a sensory-deprivation float tank. In the dark dank tank, my ADD mind never shut-down, but attended to peripheral sensations, such as water dripping. Bottom line : I didn't find the meditative state much different from my normal passionless introverted state of mind.
4. "Dogmata" : I left behind the "dogmas " of my fundamentalist raising. And have never found any new religious doctrines to replace them. I suppose you could say that, late in life, I have developed my own personal creedo, based on the Enformationism thesis. But I'm too flexible to make it a dogma.
5. "Self-mastery" : Again, a weak point for me. But that weak-will doesn't bother me, due to my normal "indifference" and "passivity".
6. "Passions" : I am, by nature, lacking in passion and motivation. So, "taming the tiger" is not a significant challenge for me. I am mostly apathetic toward the ups & downs of life. But that's not due to following any Praxis of Stoicism. It's just the way I am.
7. "Indifference" : "What? Me worry?" :cool:

I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. — Wayfarer

As an aside, I'll mention that both of us seem to take broad moderate positions on the Realism vs Idealism and Materialism vs Spiritualism spectrum. Yet, we have crossed an invisible line in the sand, drawn by adherents of the non-religious belief system known as Scientism. Hence, any mention of woo-words like "spirit" can tag you with attributed beliefs that are associated with the "wrong" end of that spectrum. That's because those with polarized views of "ultimates", often see moderates as tending toward the opposite side.

Unfortunately, any metaphysical worldview (an -ism, like Materialism) can be turned into a dogmatic cult/religion by gurus who are motivated to gather admiring followers, who don't think for themselves. For example, even the literally rational (ratio-based) Mathematics of Pythagoras became a sort of religious cult, when an abstract idealized metaphysical concept became encrusted in physical metaphors about such innocuous things as reincarnating beans.

Although mathematical physicist/cosmologist, Max Tegmark, is treading on the ideal side of modern worldviews, I'm not aware of any cult following that has emerged from his Platonic notion of a mathematical universe . . . yet. My own one-man, information-focused, belief system does not have any of the emotional appeal necessary for a popular religion . . . yet. :joke:


Pythagoreanism :
Society remembers Pythagoras as a mathematician and not as a charismatic cult leader. However, the two go hand in hand. Pythagoras believed in sacred mathematics and thought that the universe could be understood through numbers. Pythagoreanism was more than a cult of numero-philes. They believed in metempsychosis (reincarnation), embraced an egalitarian communal lifestyle, and practiced a rigid set of daily rituals and dietary restrictions. The cult also believed in universal music or harmony of the spheres, wherein it was believed that the movements of celestial bodies were a form of music.
https://www.thecollector.com/cult-of-pythagoras/

I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. But those terms do make sense in the context of the cultures and traditions in which they were meaningful. I suppose in terms of an ostensible ultimate, I could assent to 'dharma', which is from the Indic root meaning 'what holds together'. There are convergences between 'dharma' and 'logos'. — Wayfarer

I too, am cautious about speaking of philosophical Ultimate postulations on a mostly proximate-minded Materialistic forum. But in discussions about Mind & Consciousness, the question of Origins frequently comes up. So, I have used a variety of wiggle-words to describe a concept that is literally out-of-this-world : pre-Big-Bang & Pre-Space-Time. At first, I merely added an ambiguous asterisk to the common word for The Ultimate : G*D. But I also occasionally use some traditional philosophical terms, such as LOGOS & TAO, to describe the ineffable enforming-organizing power behind the scenes of this organic-orderly world, that somehow produces meaningful Order (patterns) out of random Chaos (noise).

I also avoid attributing such anthro-morphic characteristics as Goodness & Mercy to the creative force behind the program of heuristic Evolution (Nature). Which is often distinguished from intentional development (Culture) as "red in tooth & claw". The Tao is described as "harmonious", but that's merely an Ideal that is seldom found in a world divided between Predator & Prey. Instead, the world being created by the Tekton or Demiurge follows a meandering path that is globally balanced, but locally erratic. The "design" of this world is indeed Intelligent (logical), but not necessarily Good (emotional) from the perspective of its flesh & blood inhabitants. So, I refer to the long-running Cosmic Program of Emergence as "Intelligent Evolution". That's because it includes natural Laws (of unknown etiology) that guide it past heuristic accidents toward an unforseeable Ultimate Output.

From the viewpoint of the Enformationism thesis though, I refer to the presumptive creator (First Cause) of the evolutionary program, running on the physical computer we call the Universe, by the functional description : Programmer or Enformer. This non-traditional notion derives from modern sciences, including Evolutionary Programming, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory. And the fundamental element/essence of all those sciences is, not just inert Data, but causal Information (Energy + Law). You won't find these novel ideas in textbooks or dictionaries, because they are new & unproven, and possibly unprovable. And their only value is for philosophical speculation on ultimate questions. :smile:


TAO :
the absolute principle underlying the universe, combining within itself the principles of yin and yang and signifying the way, or code of behavior, that is in harmony with the natural order.
___Oxford dictionary
Note --- My thesis presents a neologism for the principle of Yin/Yang : BothAnd.

LOGOS :
When Aristotle talks about logos, he’s referring to ‘reasoned discourse’ or ‘the argument’.
https://boords.com/ethos-pathos-logos/what-is-logos-definition-and-examples-with-gifs
Note : I view the gradually evolving world as an on-going "argument" on an unknown topic. We don't know the original question, but we experience the pros & cons as the heuristic process of discovery, that we call "Evolution". The trend seems to be generally toward Complexity, but with inherent Contradictions.

DHARMA :
(in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order. ---Oxford dictionary
Note --- What Science calls "natural law", the ancients labelled as Tao, Dharma, or Logos. In each case, the Law is an ideal that is often broken by willful humans, with the gift of Consciousness.

As such, the Latin term “ratio” does not pivot on maths and computations – it certainly doesn’t equate to mathematical ratios in the modern sense of "ratio". Instead, this Latin term's meaning pivots on something far closer to discernment and, thereby, all that can result from and is implied by faculties of discernment (to include judgments, awareness of purpose(s), plans, and mathematical properties and relations, among many other possibilities). — javra

Thanks for the clarification. However, I was not making a statement about the Latin language, but about the modern usage of the term "ratio". Synonyms range from fraction, quotient, & percentage to proportion, balance, & relationship. It's also the root of "Rational", pertaining to Logic & Reason. All of those terms, and many more, convey particular aspects of the general concept of "Information" (the power to enform ; to create novel knowable things). And they are also related to "Logic" & "Reason" as functional features of human Consciousness. Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about the ubiquity of universal Information (bits) : from Math to Meaning to Physics (it from bit). :smile:

It from Bit Theory :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Note --- Before Shannon, "information" referred only to "things mental". Now it encompasses "all things", both physical and metaphysical.

Immaterial & Material Information :
"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses . . ."
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

I'm sorry, if my equation of Energy & Mind annoys you — Gnomon
It doesn’t annoy me, but I’m not persuaded by it. — Wayfarer

I suppose you are also not persuaded by Max Tegmark's thesis of a Mathematical Universe. Besides being anathema to the worldview of Materialism, that notion is counter-intuitive to the matter/energy sensing human brain. I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?). However, mathematics is not a physical substance out there in the world, but a way of modeling the world in the human Mind. My notion of Causal Information is similar, except that it is not just inert statistics, but dynamic ever-changing physics.

In James Glattfelder's book, Information-Consciousness-Reality, he devotes a chapter to the topic : A Universe Built of Information. There, he quotes editor/publisher of science books, John Horgan : "The everything-is-information meme violates common sense". Yet, Glattfelder concludes in the epilogue : "I believe in the computational engine of the universe --- reality's information-theoretic ontology. I believe that consciousness shares the same innate essence as the 'material' " {my bold} And, according to Einstein, the essence of Matter/Mass is Energy*1. But where did the cosmos-creating power of the Big Bang come from?

Not from within space-time, apparently. Hence, there must be something more eternal/essential/fundamental than physical Energy. That ultimate quintessence is what I call EnFormAction, and it necessarily existed prior to the Big Bang : as causal & organizing Potential. Without that motivational-directional-integrating impetus, nothing in the Actual world would exist : not even the dust of Entropy.

Obviously, we don't sense Matter & Energy as the same thing ; they have different physical properties & effects. But they share a formal relationship to some more fundamental essence. In my thesis, I refer to that essence as The Power to Enform, abbreviated as Information, or more technically as EnFormAction*2. What may not be so obvious is that I'm using a common word, "Information", in an uncommon sense : the ability to cause change, and to organize isolated parts into meaningful wholes. From that perspective, EnformAction is Energy + Laws. I usually avoid calling that magical power "divine" though, because that's a "woo word" and a dialog stopper. Instead, I refer to it anonymously by Plato's non-anthro-morphic term : "LOGOS".

For me the Source of all power in the universe remains a mystery, beyond the scope of empirical Science. So, I can't persuade you with hard facts, only metaphors & analogies & reasoning. :smile:


*1. Energy - Matter equivalence :
It's the world's most famous equation, but what does it really mean? "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

*2. EnFormAction :
*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons. The ability to know & interpret the non-self world is what we call Awareness or Consciousness : to make distinctions ; to parse random complexity into meaningful patterns.
*** 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

Not according to the Oxford Dictionary online edition. It says the first use of the term was in relation to: accusatory or incriminatory intelligence against a person — Wayfarer

Perhaps, instead of original meaning of "information" I should have said "the pre-Shannon usage of 'information' " referred to the contents of a Mind. I wasn't talking about a particular dictionary definition, but to traditional usage over the years as indicated in synonyms : instruction, intelligence*1, knowledge, message.

The distinction I was trying to make is between Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of the meaningless carrier/container, as opposed to the message/content : meaning. The container of Shannon's Information is a material substance of some kind (neuron), but the content is immaterial knowledge (idea, meaning). Hence, the meaningful content of a bit of Information is mind-stuff. And a "bit" is a binary digit, expressed as a mathematical ratio*2. Which, incidentally is the root of "Reason" and "Rational". :nerd:

*1. Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. _____Wikipedia
Note --- For the purposes of my thesis, I refer to the various usages of "intelligible information" as contrasted with Shannon's "conveyable information".

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

Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them: — Ø implies everything

Yes. Time is just one way to measure the world. Spatial extension (3D) is timeless & static. But dynamic Motion extension brings in a new vector of time. Motion is a change in Spatial position that requires a fourth arrow for measurement.

In theory, Consciousness could be aware of static existence (object), but in practice our brains are designed to register differences in position (process). That's why our eyes are constantly sweeping the scene to detect meaningful differences in location (motion). So a time interval (change) is more meaningful to living organisms than static location in space. :smile:

According to wikiquote that statement that you are propagating, as being from Heisenberg, is misattributed. — wonderer1

OK. I'll delete the quote.

But I wasn't trying to "propagate" anything. I had never heard that quote before. And it doesn't even indicate the point I was trying to make : The quantum pioneers who used concepts from Eastern philosophy, were not trying to "propagate" the religions associated with the Holistic concepts.

Apparently Heisenberg was at least a nominal Christian, not a Hindu or Buddhist. On this forum Holistic ideas are often dismissed as "woo". But, Holism (e.g. entanglement) is a primary distinguishing factor of Quantum physics compared to Classical Newtonian physics. Yet, Newton himself was at least a nominal Christian, who dabbled in Alchemy. Which would be dismissed today as "woo". :smile:

It's not an analogy, it's a proposition. The difficulty with your thesis being that energy does not itself exhibit a 'capacity for experience', it acts without any such capacity, which is specific to consciousness. And to say that consciousness is a product of matter-energy is falling back to philosophical materialism. You're not going to arrive at anything like an explanation for where consciousness fits in the grand scheme by equating it with energy (or information, for that matter.) — Wayfarer

I'm sorry, if my equation of Energy & Mind annoys you. But, that's exactly why my thesis*1 is based on metaphysical Information instead of physical Energy. I sometimes call it "directed energy", or "causal energy", or "encoded energy", and sometimes "enforming principle"*2. But my primary alternative to the randomized matter-morphing Energy of Physics, is the notion of EnFormAction*3, which includes mental phenomena among its effects. Unfortunately, I have to repeatedly remind TPF posters that the original meaning of the word "Information", was " knowledge and the ability to know". Also, the relationship between metaphysical (mental) Information & physical (causal) Energy*4 is a recent discovery in science, hence not well known.

The Enformationism thesis is indeed intended to be an explanation for how metaphysical Consciousness could emerge from physical Evolution --- naturally and without divine intervention*5. Moreover, immaterial causal encoded Energy (EnFormAction) is proposed as the agent-of-Awareness in a material world. Unfortunately, that hypothesis is so far from the current dominant worldview, that it is counter-intuitive for those who are only familiar with Claude Shannon's narrow pragmatic definition of "information". So, I keep plugging away, to convey the notion that the reductive Physics definition of "Energy" captures only one aspect of its multifunction roles in the Real and Ideal realms of the World System. One eventual & eventful effect of that natural Causation is the mysterious emergence of mental phenomena in a constantly morphing material world. :smile:

PS__The gap-bridging monistic BothAnd principle*6 --- implicit in the EnFormAction concept --- is difficult for both dualistic-or-monistic Materialists and Spiritualists to accept.

*1. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information (Form), rather than Matter (Hyle), is the basic substance (essence) of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a 21st century update of the ancient paradigms of Materialism and Spiritualism.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

*2. Ultimate Enforming Principle :
A major dispute is that of Matter versus Spirit. The Bible describes God as a “spirit”, but the modern concept of Energy (a form of information) --- as an invisible power --- was not even a gleam in the eye of the Bronze Age scribes. Nevertheless, both Ward and I have used the novel Information Age notion of flowing data bits, pioneered by Claude Shannon, and many quantum physicists, as an analog of those invisible ancient agents known as ghosts & spirits.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page24.html

*3. What is EnFormAction? :
The BothAnd Principle is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Spiritualism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods. The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”. In this case though, the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation. But Energy & Causation are basically the same thing. And the “En-” prefix is typically used to indicate that which causes a thing to be in whatever state or form or condition is referred to.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*4. Information as Energy :
The literal equivalence of physical energy and mental information is still a fringe notion among scientists. But it has many credentialed champions, including Paul Davies, editor of the book noted above. Energy = Information (power to cause changes in Form).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. Preternatural LOGOS :
So, I’ll skip the history lesson, and focus mainly on the emerging secular notion of some force behind Nature that functions like an “invisible hand”, guiding humanity toward a more inclusive “moral circle”. This god-like guide is not conceived in anthro-morphic mythical terms, but more like Plato’s philosophical creative principle, the Logos.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page47.html

*6. 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?
Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean? — Ø implies everything

Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change*1. That's what Einstein referred to as the "Fourth Dimension". We visualize that ongoing change as a river of water flowing downhill. But it's really the flow of invisible Energy/Causation flowing from hot to cold states, and causing physical changes along the way, that we can see, and attribute to the passing of ghostly Causation.

However, due to the digitizing of incoming data*2, our perception only captures still shots (moments, instants) of change. Which we then conceive as a continuous stream of change. So, our awareness of the "present" is actually delayed slightly from the external event.

Strangely, a related question arises : during the 10 billion years before the emergence of Life & Mind (sentience ; consciousness) --- did Time, as we know it --- still exist? Obviously, change was occurring, but is physical Change the same as metaphysical (conceptual) Time? Is there a temporal dimension when there is no one to measure it? When a tree falls in the forest --- with no ears around --- does it make a sound? :smile:



*1. All things flow, nothing abides. You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are continually flowing on. Nothing is permanent except change. ___Heraclitus

*2. Digital Perception : Neurons require a minimum input stimulus before firing an output. Thus there is a time-delay (+/- 80 milliseconds) between input & output. But our Conception of change is analog, with the gaps filled-in. Hence, as in a movie, we are not normally aware of the still frames that flash by faster than 80ms.

I read about the idea of a central processing hub a while back. It would take sensory cues, models, learned and innate reflexes, hopes, fears, etc. and smush it together somehow. — frank

Yes. Daniel Dennett derisively labeled that hypothetical "central processing hub" as the Cartesian Theatre. And the "hub" was portrayed as a homunculus (little man in the head). Materialist scientists are still looking in vain for a central processor in the brain. :nerd:

INFINITE REGRESS OF CONCEPTION

But if the cultural pendulum swings back toward thinking of ideas as some sort of stuff, or an interaction between stuff, then ideas would take their place among the material of materialism like gravity did. — frank

Gravity --- spooky action at a distance --- is often imagined as-if it's a material substance, and portrayed in images as a two dimensional grid in space. But in reality, there is no physical "tractor beam" out in space, pulling heavy objects toward each other. That's why Einstein defined it as an invisible mathematical relationship, not a tangible "fabric" with hills & valleys. Those are merely metaphors --- like the sentient homunculus --- to aid us in conceiving of something otherwise inconceivable, because immaterial. :smile:

WARPED FABRIC OF EMPTY SPACE

Given all those caveats, I think there's a case to be made for a type of dualism. Perhaps it could be argued that consciousness is 'the capacity for experience' in an allegorical manner to energy as 'the capacity for work'// and that physical matter, in the absence of consciousness, lacks the capacity for experience. So that the emergence of organisms is also the emergence of the capacity for experience, which is absent in the non-organic domain.// — Wayfarer

I like that analogy. Mostly because it aligns with my own little reductive thesis, that everything in the universe is a form of Energy, in the sense of Causation, and from the perspective of information theory1. Complexity/panoply is ultimately simplicity.

Since Einstein equated Matter (Mass) with Energy (E=MC^2), most of us on this forum have come to accept the counter-intuitive notion that invisible intangible Energy/Force can transform*2 into the visible tangible matter-substance-stuff that our physical senses are attuned to. And since Shannon equated knowable Information with Entropy/Uncertainty, we can now trace the emergence of the "capacity for experience" back to the primal "capacity for work" (for change, causation).

Mental experience (knowing, awareness) is mostly an encounter with Change (difference) in the environment. Those Transformations (changes in physical form) are due to the Causal power --- ability to do the work of metamorphosis (a change of the form or nature of a thing). That natural constructive/destructive power is merely Energy (EnFormAction*3) in its various forms (light, heat, impulse, etc). And those bits of experience (knowledge) are recordings in the brain/mind of minor changes in the environment. Collectively, we call those incoming bits & bytes of potential experience : "Information" (meaning, relative to self).

I apologize for using your analogy to discuss my own unfamiliar mashup of Energy & Information & Consciousness. I'm still looking for ways to make such arcane sub-atomic science understandable for philosophical purposes. Now, back to your regular program. :smile:

PS__The thesis ultimately compresses the conventional dualism of Mind/Brain into the monism of Universal Causation (the power to enform).


*1. Formation : to cause changes in structure, both positive & negative
To "inform" is to introduce a formative (causal) principle into a mind. To "enform" is to inject a causal (formative) principle into a material object.

*2. Transform : make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.
Abstract Energy (light, heat) is a wave form, alternating from maximum to minimum, and passing through a zero point in between. Compression of the wave intensifies the energy value. When compressed to a degree defined by the cosmic constant ("C"), now known as the vacuum energy density, it apparently "squeezes" the nothingness of vacuum into the measurable Mass of Matter. The result is a complete transformation of abstract Potential into concrete Actual. Magic? No, Science.

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

"The mind seems to be non-material, though tied to the brain which is material. . . . . The very idea of mind acting on matter by a pure effect of will appears a little spooky" — Gnomon
Is substance-dualism making a come back? — RogueAI

Apparently, Substance Dualism never went away. It seems to be compared or contrasted with Property Dualism in the never-ending debates on Brain vs Mind explanations for the mysterious-yet-familiar quality of Consciousness, by which we know both substances and properties. :smile:

PS__When I refer to "substance" in this context, I'm usually talking about Aristotle's definition as Essence.
Substance and Essence in Aristotle :
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801421266/substance-and-essence-in-aristotle/#bookTabs=1

He means that the information we have about how the visual system works, for instance, doesn't explain the experience of seeing, at least it hasn't yet. The knowledge about what the brain is doing during vision is third person data. The experience itself is first-person data. — frank

I'm currently reading a book by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics. After a chapter discussing Donald Hoffman's interface theory ("a necessary deception"), he raises the "binding problem"*2 of Consciousness, using vision as an example. "The retinal image is split apart at its very inception into disembodied aspects each of which is analyzed in different and specialized part of the brain". And, "the information parsed by the brain is assembled and comes together somewhere". Then he concludes, "no one knows where or how visual information comes together to yield a systematic, unitary image." He uses an old term from 20th century Psychology, Gestalt*3, to label those holistic concepts.

Apparently, incoming sensory information from the outside world is reductively "analyzed" by the brain into various qualia, like Shape or Motion, which are parceled-out according to their significance to the observer. But eventually, all those isolated parts must be re-integrated into the holistic concepts, we call Images or Ideas or Gestalts. Yet, there is no known mechanism for that transformation from parts to wholes. Even the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, doesn't specify by what magic the bits of physical neuronal information (codes) are transmuted into subjective metaphysical mental imagery (content). This implicit natural "magic" may be what Materialists dismiss as spooky "woo". Yet Pinter takes it seriously.

He uses several terms --- integrated, come together, convergence, confluence --- to describe the process of "binding" bits of information into meaningful bytes (words) of awareness. Yet his proposed mechanism is not a mechanism at all, but merely acknowledgement of the apparent duality of reality, and the necessary unity of the universe. "The mind seems to be non-material, though tied to the brain which is material. . . . . The very idea of mind acting on matter by a pure effect of will appears a little spooky". But it's only uncanny if your worldview has no place for immaterial stuff like Ideas & Ideals.

To explain the disdainful "woo" response to notions of matterless mental phenomena, Pinter notes that "contemporary philosophy is dominated by a materialist way of thinking strongly influenced by physics". Yet, since Materialism is an unproven presumption (axiom), the problem may be more of a "way of believing" than a "way of thinking". Although the term is not in the book's Index, his own monistic unifying approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness sounds more like Panpsychism. :smile:


PS___He doesn't refer to Biosemiology by name, but the author mentions that "the signals merely code the content", implying that the personal significance (meaning) of those incoming symbols is a product of Mind, not Brain. He also says, "the brain constructs a coded representation of the visual array . . . . There is no known physical mechanism which could achieve this unification". Here again, the implication of Holism, which is a taboo concept for believers in monistic Materialism, living in an apparently dualistic world. :nerd:


*1. Interface Theory :
Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
Note --- "primary" = incoming Percepts ; "secondary" = processed Concepts ???

*2. The neural binding problem :
In its most general form, “The Binding Problem” concerns how items that are encoded by distinct brain circuits can be combined for perception, decision, and action. In Science, something is called “a problem” when there is no plausible model for its substrate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/
Note --- Incoming physically encoded Information (abstract dots & dashes) must be metaphysically decoded (into meaningful words & images) in order to make sense to the observer.

*3. Gestalt :
The classic principles of the gestalt theory of visual perception include similarity, continuation, closure, proximity, figure/ground, and symmetry & order
https://www.toptal.com/designers/ui/gestalt-principles-of-design
Note --- Pinter says "Gestalt is not an objective fact of the world, but is a way of being perceived. It is a property of perception, not a property of of the external world." Although I appreciate the alliteration, to be more accurate, I would change physical "perception" to mental "conception",

Perception = analysis (reductive science)
Conception = integration (holistic philosophy)

David Chalmer's doesn't say that consciousness is off-limits. He says it is intractable from the third-person perspective, due to its first-person character. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the Consciousness problem is "intractable" for empirical science because subjective experience is seamless & holistic, with no obvious joints for reductive science to carve into smaller chunks of Awareness. Equating the material Brain with the immaterial Mind is like carving thin air with a steak knife. Unfortunately, that means philosophers can only analyze theoretically, not empirically. Is that like a toothless man gumming a steak, then trying to swallow it whole? We can get a taste of 3rd person Consciousness, but not the full meaning/feeling. :smile:

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Yes. What we are aware of is Change. And the cognitive ability to keep track of changes in the environment may be a minimum requirement for the continued survival of complex organisms ; to stave-off entropy. The actual progression of change may be continuous ("ongoing now"), but we humans tend to digitize holistic qualities into measurable increments. Each measured moment (now) is like a single still image on a strip of movie film. But the moments themselves are artifacts of mental processing, not inherent in Nature. Although I've heard of some theories saying that Time is essentially quantized*1.

Recently, I had a light-bulb moment, when I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation"*2. Energy is the cause, and Time is the effect. We seem to perceive Change, and conceive it as Time. The act of perception/conception is what we call "Awareness". So, I suspect that Consciousness is limited to only those elements of the world that can keep track of changes, via a record of energy events : Moments ; Memory. Does a rock retain a concept of Now & Then? :smile:



*1. Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit? :
"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/

*2. Time is the currency of Physics :
From a cosmological perspective it seems that Time (progressive change) is one activity that Energy is working on. Ironically, we typically think of Time as a fundamental feature of reality. But, it may be merely an effect of something even more essential : the cosmic power of Causation.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html