What is the metaphysics of materialism? — ucarr

Any generalization of principles (all things are . . . .) from less than comprehensive experience is considered a metaphysical concept, not a physical or empirical fact*1. Also, portraying some principle as universal, implies either a First Cause or Eternal Being. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics of Materialism :
Materialism, is a causal theory of scientific reality. It is the argument that when we pronounce anything in our sense-experience to be real we imply an independent cause of it. According to the principle of relativity, the inference is entirely unnecessary and to insist on it unscientific.
https://www.nature.com/articles/108400a0

Never mind my absential materialism label. Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

No. I have repeatedly denied that unwarranted implication. However, I do assert that Matter is not the primary cause of all phenomena in the world. My thesis goes into great detail to support the idea that Causal Information is prior to both physical Energy and malleable Matter.*2 :cool:

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

Please elaborate your refutation of his unscientific concepts of end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution. Also, please check out this conversation re: its pertinence to teleodynamics: — ucarr

I was not "refuting" his notion of Teleology/Teleonomy, but instead noting that most scientists would say it's a religious concept, not a scientific principle*3. For me, Teleology is a legitimate philosophical inference from the observation of direction in evolution. For those, who find the notion of Ententional Evolution*4*5 unacceptable, Deacon offered the alternative term : Teleonomy, which attempts to avoid the implication of Design in Nature. However, Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection" (for fitness criteria) implied intentional Choice, but attributed it to Nature instead of to God. :wink:

*3. Teleological Misconceptions :
Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective “teleological” to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z

*4. Ententional :
Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term 'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention

*5. Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
Enformationism theory observes that Evolution shows signs of progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Here's another notable difference between us. Whereas you see my examples of ententional properties as being superficial due to a lack of philosophical essence, I see them as being substantial due to their mundanity. — ucarr

Your mundane examples may be "substantial"*6 enough for scientific endeavors, but lack the essential "qualities" or general principles necessary for philosophical purposes. :smile:

*6. Substance
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy

This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover

The hypothetical Big Bang was an energetic outburst, but from what or where? And the projected Heat Death is the end of that cosmic energetic cycle. In a philosophical sense, the First Cause of the "Bang" was Aristotelian Potential which actualized into the Causal forces of Nature. But, like a run-down cell phone battery, the original potential fades back into the chaos of entropy, which no longer has the "ability" to cause Change. But the Potential for future energy remains in the chemistry of the battery, which only needs re-formatting to again produce useful Energy.

However, if the conservation law is correct, the cosmic battery should be rechargeable. A recent discovery of physics is that active Energy is merely one Form of Causal Power. It can also transform into Mass/Matter, and into the Entropy of Information*1, as processed by Minds & Computers. All physical batteries have limited discharging cycles, before they need to go back to the manufacturer to be recycled by the original Battery-maker. Plato envisioned that creation event as disorganized Chaos constructed into orderly Cosmos as-if by a metaphorical artisan*2. But, the a priori First Cause of the demiurge and creation event was left as a mystery.

Without more information about the precursor or pre-conditions of the Big Bang (our modern demiurge) we can only say that the philosophical principle of Potential for Actual causation necessarily pre-existed the realization of all natural forces. Perhaps that Platonic Form was something like a programmer encoding Information into Energy & Matter??? :smile:


*1. Is information a form of energy? :
Information is not itself energy. But you can trade entropy of information for entropy of state, which let's you turn "waste" energy, such as ambient heat, into useful energy. That's basically what Maxwell's Demon does.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/information-is-a-form-of-energy.461784/

*2. Plato's Universe :
The universe, or Cosmos, is a living being endowed with a soul (30C f.). The Cosmos was fashioned from a pre-existing chaos by a Divine Craftsman, the Demiurge, using the Forms as models for sensible objects (29D f.). Plato does not say what, if anything produced the Demiurge or the chaos.
https://physics.bgsu.edu/p433/Spacetime4.html

BATTERY ORGANIZED INTO OPPOSITE POLES WITH POTENTIAL BETWEEN

Your above quote expresses the crux of our disagreement about the correct approach to practicing philosophy. You say, "Do philosophy by avoiding materialistic physics." I say, "Do philosophy by embracing materialistic physics." — ucarr

I gradually realized that our communication problem stems mostly from our different ways of doing philosophy. We are talking about Deacon's radical scientific & philosophical Worldview, which does not yet have an official label of its own : can we call it Absentialism? Absence is like Zero*1 in that it is a metaphysical concept with no material instances. So, a materialistic approach is like shooting at ghosts.

One thing that makes his metaphysical thesis difficult, yet admirable, is that it introduces novel terminology that often sounds paradoxical. He is both criticized & blamed for straying from conventional scientific & philosophical language*2. But then, he is a linguistic anthropologist, so what would you expect? Linguistic philosopher Wittgenstein*3 famously aphorized : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Ironically, he himself spoke of arcane topics, and his works have been characterized as "inscrutable" by critics. That may be due to his attempt to speak of unspeakable (metaphysical) concepts.

In the Philosophy Now magazine (159), Slavoj Zizek noted that "Wittgenstein himself said that there are things impossible to talk about, such as metaphysical speculations". And that may be why modern Materialists try to avoid speaking of such non-things. Yet, Zizek suggested an alternative to dogmatic religious or doctrinal scientific language. "Poetry is an attempt to put in words what cannot be said --- to evoke it". And that seems to be how modern philosophy treads the line between physical Reality and Metaphysical Ideality, on topics such as Consciousness. An old admonition to young writers was: "don't say, show!". Meaning, don't describe appearances in ordinary words, but illustrate essences in images. That's also why, in Poetry and Philosophy, what can't be described materially, must be evoked metaphorically. Which may require novel word associations, that are called "neologisms".

Deacon didn't include a glossary of his ad hoc new-words in the book, but a few others have posted their own Deactionaries on the net to supplement their own interpretations of his unconventional meanings*4. Although his title topic, Absence, is not an acceptable notion in Materialistic Physics, it is essential to Mathematical Physics*1. Also, the notion of Evolution as Teleological crosses the taboo line between Physics and Metaphysics. You seem to interpret his Absentialism as-if it remains safely within the orthodox metaphysics of Materialism, while I view it as supporting the novel metaphysics of Informationism*5, which is amenable to both Science and Philosophy, both Physics and Metaphysics.

The main reason I & others have had difficulty understanding your Absential Materialism worldview, is that it seems to be a vain attempt to squeeze a metaphysical philosophical concept into a physical scientific box, and to describe intangibles in materialistic language. Deacon himself skirted the line between philosophy and science, but he was often forced by his own reasoning to include unscientific concepts, such as end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution*4 to convey his metaphysical interpretations of "hidden connections" that exist right in front of us. They are hidden to our physical senses, but apparent to our metaphysical reasoning. For me, a more "correct approach" to practicing philosophy is to accept both physical and metaphysical evidence, not to reject one or the other. :smile:

PS___My approach to doing Philosophy does not "avoid materialistic physics", but it does recognize that 19th century Physics and 17th century Mechanics have little to offer for perennial philosophical questions. On the other hand, my thesis does lean heavily on the insights of semi-material (wave-particle) Quantum Physics regarding Mind & Consciousness questions.*6


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshiped it, and the Church used it to fend off heretics. Now it threatens the foundations of modern physics. For centuries the power of zero savored of the demonic; once harnessed, it became the most important tool in mathematics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

*2. Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness :
Thus, as noted above, deacon is not a materialist who believes that the human mind is reducible to complex neural activity in the brain. but he also believes that human subjectivity is not based on the presupposition of a soul or immaterial principle of self-organization at work within a human being. --- Joseph Bracken
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjtheophil.38.2-3.0138

*3. Ludwig Wittgenstein :
By showing the application of modern logic to metaphysics, via language, he provided new insights into the relations between world, thought, and language and thereby into the nature of philosophy. . . .
Starting with a seeming metaphysics, Wittgenstein sees the world as consisting of facts (1), rather than the traditional, atomistic conception of a world made up of objects. Facts are existent states of affairs (2) and states of affairs, in turn, are combinations of objects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
Note --- Facts & States are not material things, but mental snapshots of reality. As such, those Ideas do not exist in the same sense as Real things, and can't be adequately described in materialistic language --- although some may try. That's why your real world examples (post above) of your own neologisms seemed superficial to me, and missed the philosophical essence of the concept.

*4. Deacon's Glossary :
Teleological (Teleology): Purposive, or end-directed (the study of such relationships). Philosophically related to Aristotle's concept of a "final cause"
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/#glossary

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

*6. Is quantum physics materialistic?
Quantum mechanics, which developed in the early twentieth century, has been a serious blow to materialism. There is no way to make sense of it if immaterial entities like information, observation, or the mind are not real. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder struggles against the effects of this fact.
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/11/quantum-physics-axed-materialism-many-hope-the-world-wont-know/

An everyday example of an end-oriented constraint comes in the example of a woman who decides she'll eliminate dairy products from her meals — ucarr

Thanks for the "everyday" examples. But I was hoping for more general philosophical or physical principles behind each of those neologisms.

For instance, I can interpret "end oriented constraint" as functionally similar to a Natural Law : a limitation on the freedom of Causation. In a teleological sense, the as-if Lawmaker opposes positive Energy with negative Entropy, so that, working together, those freedoms & constraints will guide the as-if mechanism of Evolution toward some desired end state. Without constraints, total freedom would be chaotic & directionless. The "End State" is Aristotle's Final Cause : the as-if Purpose of the Universe.

Likewise, "absential binding" is like an unobstructed channel of emptiness --- the path of least resistance --- within a concresence of Matter (e.g. the center hole of a wagon wheel) that makes room for orderly movement of the whole arrangement of spokes & rims. The hole is not a material thing, but it has a physical function : to bind the spokes into an operational mechanical system.

Similarly, a "strategic constraint" works like a "constitutive constraint" to forge an unobstructed path toward a future state that is deemed desirable by the planner. For example, horse rounders used to build a fence with a carefully-placed opening to allow the driven horses in, but to block their exit. A strategy is a plan of action that takes into account useful options and possible setbacks.

Regarding "nested blockchains" within "dynamical systems", I imagine a decentralized-but-intertwined network of interrelations that function as rule-restricted paths of interaction within a constantly changing apparatus of disparate parts. The "chains" are not material or physical, but functional in the service of a specified overall system goal. For a cryptocurrency blockchain, the purpose is to allow exchange of metaphysical value without physical money.

All of these "constraints" & "chains" & "bonds" are metaphysical in the sense of Absence of Matter, but they play a key role in the operations of physics. :smile:

Deacon's Absent Constraints :
By "constraint" he means "the property of being restricted or being less variable than possible." By "absence" he means that constraint is a negative property qualifying a collection or ensemble of constituent parts or members: "It is a way of referring to what is not exhibited, but could have been, at least under some circumstances" . By "constitutive absence" he means what is the case "irrespective of whether this is registered by any act of observation". So constraint thus understood is metaphysically grounded in something constitutive of the way nature works. This kind of constraint is not externally imposed by some outside agency but internally by reason of "the dynamical organization of a somewhat diverse class of phenomena which share in common the tendency to become spontaneously more organized and orderly over time due to constant perturbation". Deacon cautions that these processes of internal organization have been called "self-organizing," but that in fact there is no self to do the organizing of their inanimate components
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/675195/summary
Note --- no actual Self, but the appearance of an as-if absential Self.


NESTED SYSTEMS & SUB-SYSTEMS OF PERMITTED PATHS

This is my first post on this forum and I would like to debate about the hypothetical end of humanity and what would be possible scenarios that could happen. — Ege

There is a philosophical difference between a> Climate Change Denial, and b> Climate Disaster Panic, and c> Stoic acceptance that Sh*t Happens that we don't like. All through history, especially in the Bible, doom-saying prophets have seen portents pointing toward catastrophe, and predicted the immanent end of the world. Their projections of future events are typically limited to the current generation, in order to make the necessity for a course change more scary --- as in the recent slew of Dystopian movies, graphically illustrating what will happen if we (humanity) don't change our evil ways.

Typically. the "End Times" are portrayed as just around the corner. But history is a record of such failed Apocalyptic prophecies*1. So, I wouldn't listen to the self-appointed prophets-of-doom (short-term tacticians), and instead pay attention to the long-term strategists*2, who point to anthropogenic trends that are subject to remediation via Culture Shift : population control, solar power, etc. Cultural change is rapid, compared to climate change, but it has inertia comparable to addictions. Like Democracy, culture change is erratic & messy, but waiting for God to purify the evil world with fire is self-defeating. Humanity may not fix the problem with top-down action, but forward-thinking humans can make incremental changes in the downward trend.

So, why don't short-term downward trends go all the way down to the bottom? That's because nature & culture are affected by countervailing forces. Until recently, human activities had little impact on global climate swings. But as the long-term chart below illustrates, Culture is now a major player in the climate game : Anthropogenic change, both positive & negative. So, if humanity is fouling its own nest, a bit of countervailing house-cleaning is in order. But burning-down the house, and moving to Mars, may not be a viable solution. Instead, let's just do what humans have always done : adapt to unfavorable conditions (e.g. Ice Ages), by changing those conditions over which we have control*3 (learn to make domesticated fire). Meanwhile, be cool. :cool:


*1. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events :
Predictions of apocalyptic events that would result in the extinction of humanity, a collapse of civilization, or the destruction of the planet have been made since at least the beginning of the Common Era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

*2. A worst-case scenario is the most severe possible outcome that can be projected to occur in a given situation. Conceiving of worst-case scenarios is a common form of strategic planning to prepare for and minimize contingencies that could result in accidents, quality problems, or other issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst-Case_Scenario_series

*3. Stoic Serenity Prayer : "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The Stoics grasped the paradox of acceptance, that accepting pain rather than struggling against it often makes it more bearable.

LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE

In a functional relationship, there's an operator that transforms input into output. . . . .
Still furthermore, the medium propagating the object/observer relationship is material-physical spacetime. . . . .
Absential materialism, possessing both properties of waves and of particles, presents itself as a knot of complexity fostering the-glass-is-half-full-half-empty debates. — ucarr

Do you have a scientific name for this transforming "operator", other than mundane Energy? You say that this mysterious "medium" is a space-time phenomenon. How is it detected, and is there a conventional name for the propagator of this Body/Mind or Object/Observer relationship? You say that Absential Materialism possesses the properties of both Waves and Particlesas in Wave-Particle Duality.

Therefore, AM is a Wavicle*1 --- yes? Hence, a combination*2 of a non-local (but entangled) Force or Field, and simultaneously a local (disentangled) Particle? That counter-intuitive notion does not work in classical Newtonian physics, but is accepted as as "the central mystery of quantum mechanics"*3, and described by you as "a knot of complexity" --- perhaps a Gordian's Knot, that can't be disentangled by mechanical physics, but may be resolved by a philosophical compromise?*4ab :wink:


*1. Wavicle : an entity having characteristic properties of both waves and particles.

*2. BothAnd :
The BothAnd Principle of Complementarity is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Idealism, 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.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. the central mystery of quantum mechanics :
I don't actually find quantum mechanics to be much more mysterious than classical mechanics is. It is counterintuitive and very surprising, yes, but it is actually a resolution of a mystery, which was: how do particles on atomic scales behave?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-central-mystery-of-quantum-mechanics
Note --- Wavicles behave like a child : sometimes proper, but sometimes mis-behaving.

*4a. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements (forms) of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- this hypothetical precursor of Matter & Energy & Mind could be described as a Mind/Matter "link", or "medium", or "propagator", or "knot of complexity".

*4b. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, mental Information is colorless, odorless, formless, and imaginary. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, EnFormAction gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality.
This seeming break between mind and body is in reality absential materialism. Below is Deacon's blockchain of nested dynamical systems bi-directionally linked across space and time: — ucarr

A lot of your technical terminology is not in my personal word-stock, or in Deacon's glossary ; making communication difficult. Please give me a functional definition (what it does) and a real-world example (what it is) of the following terminology : a> "end oriented constraints" ; b> "absentially tied" ; c> "Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design" ; d> "blockchain of nested dynamical systems". An explanation in terms of (what it is not) may also be acceptable, since Deacon often begins with a negative definition for some of his counterintuitive concepts.

Also, a more detailed discussion of "seeming break between mind and body is . . . ." would be helpful. Descartes expressed his understanding of those distinctive categories in terms of dual substances : one material and the other experiential. But your Absential Materialism seems to imply that Matter & Mind are "bi-directionally linked" by some mysterious force or power "across space and time". I have my own ideas about what that interactive Link might be. But I'd like to hear your description, in terminology that I might be familiar with. But remember, I have no formal training in Philosophy, so my vocabulary is limited to a few commonly used words. :smile:



The Deactionary :
Deacon loves his neologisms and his redefinitions of existing terms.
https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/the-deactionary-a-glossary-of-terms-from-terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature/

Absential : a state of things not yet realized
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Potential : the power to actualize a possibility ; to transform Absential into Real. (gnomon)

Furthermore, the observing mind-brain-body is physically entangled with the object of its observation — ucarr

Yes, but the Mind can be philosophically & categorically dis-entangled from the body-brain. That's why I prefer to avoid getting tangled-up in materialistic physics, on a forum designed for discussion of meta-physics. The object of a physical experiment is a material Object, external to the Brain, but the object of mental "observation" is a Subject, internal to the Mind. The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is only made more complicated by including the entangled neurons in the definition of Mind. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Materialism does not allow us to make such categorical distinctions. :smile:

Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist — ucarr

I would interpret your use of "absentially tied" as referring to a Cause & Effect relationship. For example, in the Photoelectric Effect, incoming invisible inferred Photons are the cause of the observed effect (Electrons) flowing as energy in a material substrate. This is a physical transformation, but the photons, while moving at lightspeed are massless, and electrons are both non-local and massless while "flowing". Therefore, in their ghostly Cause & Effect forms they have no material attributes ; hence Absent as far as our matter-detecting senses are concerned.

Only at rest can they be legitimately called "particles of matter". But "rest" is not a normal state for a Photon*1. So, in its normal invisible & massless state, does it qualify as materially Absent"? This how I interpret Deacon's "Causal" or "Constitutive" Absence : immaterial cause produces material effects. "Causal Absence" is what I call the Potential to become Actual. One "Constraint" in an electrical system is Voltage, which is not a thing but an inherent limitation of the system as a whole. :nerd:

*1. Is it possible for a photon to be at rest? :
No, a photon in vacuum is required by its very nature to move at the speed of light c.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-photon-to-be-at-rest

If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality. — ucarr

You seem to be saying something close to my own understanding, but using terminology that I'm not familiar with. My knowledge of "blockchain" is limited to an abstract money-market concept of a "distributed database" in which the "chain" is not a physical thing, but a software network of mental trust interrelationships. So, those "interwoven dynamical causes" seem to be Absent in the same sense as immaterial ideas (promises), that can have material effects (buying power) on the real world.

For example, we can think of New York City as a cultural machine for shared economic progress. The material infrastructure --- skyscrapers, roads, etc.--- and immaterial Constraints --- laws, contracts, etc --- are bound together by the mental ententions of millions of entrepreneurs. Is that anything like what you mean by "blockchain"? Without the immaterial "design constraints" of the blockchain system the "products" (imaginary cryptocurrency) wouldn't exist. :wink:

Non-material Culture :
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, practices, norms, values, history, characteristics, knowledge, and artifacts of a social group. Culture includes language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music, and arts. These elements combine to create the culture of the social group and impact how members of the group think, act, and acquire possessions as a shared way of living.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-culture-material-and-nonmaterial-culture.html

Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. — ucarr

Because Deacon's notion of Absence is relevant to my own information-based philosophical worldview, I'm still trying to make sense of your materialistic understanding of "Absence" (noun) & "Absential" (adjective). In the worldview of Materialism : all things we observe in nature are by definition "material". But, to be a complete philosophical concept, that definition should explain both objects observed by the senses, and changes in those objects over time (functions) due to energetic inputs & outputs, and relationships between objects that are not seen, but inferred. In what meaningful sense are Abstract Nouns*1, such as Absence, Function, and Causation, referring to material things, and not to ideas about things or processes? Of course, mental abstractions are dependent on a material Brain, but scientifically, their referents have no objective material substance, only subjective meaning. It's the material stuff that is Absent or Absential.

In psychology, Mind is a function of brains. In math, physics, and biology, a Function is a causal concept (input causes output), but not a material object. So, a more appropriate statement would say that "mental functions are dependent on the process of causation in material things". Hence, the Function is not a "material thing", but an ongoing process of change in a material object, more like Energy. For example, in biology, Life is a function of Causation in a material substrate. As noted in the Quora opinion below*2, Abstractions are "products of physical reality". But those Absential products are not made of Presential matter. So, my question is not about the walnut-shaped Vessel, but about the contents we call Mind : the "Substance" or "Essence" of subjective Ideas, as defined by Aristotle*3.

With that clarification, I can provisionally agree with the first part of your assertion above : "mental functions are dependent on material things" ; but not with the second part : "because they {mental functions} too are material things, albeit absentially". How can something "absential" be material? Isn't Presence an essential element of the definition of "material". Deacon's "absence" seems to be a commonsense reference to the philosophical concept of "potential". Aristotle, in his discussion of Motion, Causality, & Physiology, contrasted present material Actual with absent immaterial Potential. From that perspective, Absence (no-thing) or Absential (quality of nothingness) is the opposite of material Presence. So, how can you conclude that something Absential is also Material? What kind of matter is nothingness made of? In other words, what is the Substance of Absence? Instead of "material thing" do you mean "a philosophically meaningful concept"?

I'm gradually coming to realize that Materialism is an unprovable metaphysical Axiom (presumption), not an empirical scientific Theory (inference from facts). It's more of an attitude or belief than a fact. So, I guess I can't expect such beliefs to make sense in an objective manner. Regarding a scientific or philosophical explanation of Consciousness --- including awareness of abstractions like Absence --- Terrence Deacon said "Materialism, the view that there are only material things and their interactions in the world, seems impotent here" {my emphasis}. He also referred to “the antimaterialist claim” that “like meanings & purposes, consciousness may not be something there in any typical sense of being materially or energetically embodied, and yet may still be materially causally relevant” p7 .{my bold} Your concept of Absential Materialism may be related to the notion of “materially relevant”. :smile:


*1. Abstract nouns :
We have four categories when it comes to nouns: 1.Person 2.Place 3.Animal 4.Thing. Everything in the above list can be labelled as "things". Things that are visible to the eyes. Whereas, abstract nouns contain feelings, like happiness,sadness, which can't be seen. https://www.quora.com/What-nouns-arent-words-that-refer-to-things

*2. How can scientific materialism explain the existence of abstract non-material entities? : You need to unwind your definition of Materialism to match what materialists (or physicalists) really believe, which is "matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter." That doesn't mean that we don't believe that mind or ideas don't exist, but they are a product of our physical reality. https://www.quora.com/How-can-scientific-materialism-explain-the-existence-of-abstract-non-material-entities
Note --- My position is that Abstractions are indeed “a product of physical reality”, but they have no material Substance.

*3. What according to Aristotle is the essence of a thing? :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://brainly.ph/question/25605568

*3. Substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere. . . . Benedict de Spinoza . . . . there was only one substance, which constitutes the whole of reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
Note --- a better term for Spinoza's all-encompassing "substance" may be non-local Essence.

Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. . . . .
Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something
distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example. — ucarr

As is the case with many disagreements on this forum, some key words are used with unconventional, or abstrusely technical, meanings. So they need to be carefully defined in terms that can be understood intuitively, from personal Experience : the feeling of personal affectation. For example, I can understand the general idea of the math symbol for an imaginary number "i" in your example. That's because I too experience imagination. But, as a non mathematician, I don't experience the combination of real & unreal quantities, for the same reason that I have no experience of Infinity.

Likewise, I can read your definition : "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" as a possible-but-not-obvious-relationship. But it doesn't mean anything to me intuitively. It does however, suggest a relationship similar to "Potential vs Actual", where a Potential thing is "distanced" from reality, but is statistically "connected" to a Probability definition in the realm of Possibility. That imaginary "realm" is not Real, but Ideal, since it has no material instances, only abstract imagery. It's not a Thing, but the ideal concept of a presumably possible Thing. In your terminology, the imaginary object is literally "materially absential" : the quality of lacking a material instance. Or in Deacon's vocabulary : "Constitutive Absence".

Deacon describes his notion of "Absence" in ideal, not material, terms. It's something we know by reasoning not by observation. Hence, the idea of a particular Absent thing, such as a future state of a material object, is literally Immaterial and Ideal. So, describing something as "absent" merely means missing from its expected place. But "absential" describes a quality as-if it was a quantity ; non-existence as-if it was existence. In that case, it's a hypothetical Difference that makes no meaningful Difference. Except perhaps in the sense that Deacon described "Aboutness" or "Entention" as a "non-material property of minds" (index) :

Your distinction between "materially absent" is equivalent to the numerical quantity Zero : as in "no specified material object there". But "materially absential" is similar to the conceptual quality of Nothingness : as in "nothing of any kind there". Except that the ironic meaning of that combination of words is an oxymoron, like "deafening silence". Therefore, a more useful definition of "materially absential", for me, would be merely "Potential" : conceptually possible but not yet materially actual; or "Latent" : possessing a quality that could become a quantity.

In terms of my own Information-based worldview, your "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" could be translated into "No real or actual or material form, but having the potential to become a real thing, by means of the power of EnFormAction". :smile:

Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.

Ententional : an adjective that applies to the class of objects and phenomena that refer to or are in some other way "about" something not present.

Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Latent : existing in hidden or dormant form

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. The term is derived from Wheeler's "it from bit" equation of matter & information. Which is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of Energy and Matter/Mass.

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Interesting JSTOR review of Deacon from a process-theology oriented academic:
Is Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness Still Incomplete? (free but requires registration.)
I'm going to call it a day with Deacon, I have other fish to fry. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry you're not as impressed with Deacon as I am. Perhaps you need to skip forward to the Epilogue --- after the chapter on Consciousness --- where he says : "In the natural sciences there appears to be no place for right/wrong, meaningful/meaninglessness, beauty/ugliness, good/evil, love/hate, and so forth". Hence, the need for philosophy to explore those subjective territories. He also proposes : "rethinking the frame of natural sciences in a way that has the metaphysical sophistication to integrate the realm of absential phenomena as we experience them." I have been hoping that he would publish a sequel to Incomplete Nature, that would focus more on the philosophical applications than the scientific evidence. That might be more your cup o' tea. But so far, nothing has been forthcoming. :smile:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

*3. GRAVITY WHIRLPOOL