my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. — 180 Proof

Not so. The implications of the nature of the wavefunction are significant.

Ontological Status: Is it a real, physical entity or merely a mathematical tool for predicting experimental outcomes? Realists argue that the wave function represents a physical state of a quantum system. In contrast, instrumentalists view it as a tool for calculating probabilities of different measurement outcomes, without ascribing it any physical reality.

Wave Function Collapse: The issue of wave function collapse during a measurement process is another philosophical puzzle. When a quantum system is not being observed, it is described by a wave function that encompasses a superposition of all possible states. However, when a measurement is made, the system appears to 'collapse' into one of these states. The nature of this collapse – whether it is a real physical process or a mere update of our knowledge – is debated with no empirical way of adjuticating the competing interpretations.

Locality and Nonlocality: Quantum entanglement, where particles remain connected so that the state of one (no matter how far apart they are) instantly affects the state of the other, challenges the notion of locality in physics. This leads to philosophical questions about the nature of reality and whether actions at one point in space can instantaneously affect distant objects (nonlocality).

Determinism and Indeterminism: Quantum mechanics, through the probabilistic nature of the wave function, raises questions about determinism in the universe. While classical physics is largely deterministic, the probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics have led to debates about whether the universe at a fundamental level is deterministic or indeterministic.

The Measurement Problem: This is related to the issue of wave function collapse and concerns the question of how and why quantum states appear to change abruptly and discontinuously in the act of measurement. This problem has led to various interpretations of quantum mechanics, each with its own philosophical implications.

Many-Worlds Interpretation: This interpretation posits that all possible alternative histories and futures are real and that they exist in a vast and complex multiverse. This raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our place in it, as well as the meaning of probabilities in a universe where every possibility is realized.

Epistemological Questions: Quantum mechanics also poses epistemological challenges. It forces us to reconsider our notions of knowledge, observation, and reality. The role of the observer in quantum mechanics, and the limits of what we can know about the quantum world, are central to these discussions.

Of course, most working physics can ignore the questions, as the equations and predictions work with enormous precision. They simply shut up and calculate.

Can you name a mystical / supernatural religion that is either founded on or predominantly preaches

"Thou Shalt Not Believe Hearsay"? — 180 Proof

Excerpts from Kalama Sutta, wherein the Buddha addresses the people of Kalama village with respect to which teaching to reject and which to accept.

The criterion for rejection

4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. ...

The criterion for acceptance

10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Oxford dirtionary “an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.” — Restitutor

That is the dictionary definition quoted. Organism is defined as

1. : something having many related parts that function together as a whole. 2. : an individual living thing that carries on the activities of life by means of organs which have separate functions but are dependent on each other : a living person, plant, or animal.

Organisms are mechanical in some respects but with attributes not possessed by machines.

None of which defrays the point that machines are manufactured artifacts.

The fact that from a genetic test you can say that a one nucleotide change will or won't cause cystic fibrosis is the problem. — Restitutor

But plainly that is a fact of neither mechanics nor physics but of biology. In all of what you’re saying ‘machines’ are a metaphor. Furthermore you’d never learn about genetics by studying physics, the fact you can call on ‘emergence’ as a kind of universal ad hoc gap filler notwithstanding.

Democritus was before Descartes. — Restitutor

Not relevant to the issue though. The mechanistic model of nature comes from early modern science not Greek philosophy as such.

No, it make it a model for scientific analysis of the nature of being, which is better. — Restitutor

Not being as such, but of the objects of experience. Questions about what objectively exists are different to questions about the nature of existence, which are much broader in scope.

All I can do is show you something like ATP synthase and say we have the same kind of information on masses amount of other systems and they are all just as mechanistic. — Restitutor

So to paraphrase your argument, ‘the universe operates according to mechanical principles because science says it does. If you disagree then it’s because you don’t understand science.’

Did I miss anything important?

Yes, modern physics, is a useful abstraction, but it is a useful abstraction that represents fundamental reality well enough to make incredibly accurate, specific and counterintuitive predictions so don’t just dismiss it. It is more than just abstract. — Restitutor

In respect of physical things, right. That doesn’t make it a model for philosophical analysis of the nature of being.

Yes, modern physics, is a useful abstraction, but it is a useful abstraction that represents fundamental reality well enough to make incredibly accurate, specific and counterintuitive predictions so don’t just dismiss it. — Restitutor

I'm not dismissing it, but I'm saying it's not the full picture, which is what you're proposing. The point of harking back to the Cartesian division is not because Descartes was great (although that might be), but to point out where the idea of the universe as 'machine like' originated.

I am saying the body is machine in the sense that every aspect of what is does is mechanistic and things that are purely mechanistic can be called machines without abusing the term machine. If your definition of a machine is something made of mettle and is designed by a human we are not machines but that isn’t the definition of a machine — Restitutor

'Metal'. Machines are manufactured artifacts, whilst humans and other animals are organisms. Organisms and machines have many fundamental differences, organic processes and mechanical processes have many fundamental differences. Organisms have the ability to grow, heal, mutate, learn and evolve, which machines do not have.

Please understand, you do not have enough of a scientific background to understand how mechanistic science has shown the human body and all “life” to be — Restitutor

You have provided no indication that you do, nor any citations for same, so no need to be condescending. You're advocating a mechanistic model which is well out of date.

Physis also, the arising of something from out of itself, is a bringing-forth, poiēsis ~ Heidegger. — Joshs

precisely what occurs with the act of observing an experimental result. It 'makes manifest'.

There is, however, a neat poll of modern philosophers, and physicalism/materialism is pretty dang popular there. Perhaps they didn't get the memo? — flannel jesus

It's because Western culture, generally, has deprecated and dismantled classical metaphysics. That happened mainly as a consequence of the division of mind and matter, self and world, primary and secondary, that I mentioned in my initial post. Science and engineering subsequently seized on the supposed reality of 'res extensia' and dismissed the mind, 'res cogitans', as a ghost in the machine. But whole model was built on abstractions in the first place! And to call 'materialism' or 'physicalism' into question is to flirt with - what, exactly? - spooky immaterial substances and other slippery notions of mind that no respectable academic would defend. They're materialist by default.

That, of course, is a bit of a caricature, but it's not too far from the fact of the matter. But outside academic and mainstream philosophy, there are worlds of alternative worldviews and philosophies, against which your mainstream 'analytic philosophy' is an academic parlour game.

Quantum physics is probabilistic, yes, but the function that determines those probabilities is deterministic (the Schrödinger equation). — flannel jesus

Nevertheless it is indisputable that 'the nature of the wave function' is among the great unresolved issues in philosophy of physics. There is a strong idealist streak in the new physics, Schrodinger himself wrote extensively on philosophy later in life, and professed admiration of Arthur Schopenhauer and Advaita Vedanta.

So its materialism that hasn't got the memo. It's why academic philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, that is hardly relevant to current culture.

Although that said, you’re right, I will cease from commenting on Dennett henceforth. I’ve made my feelings clear.

parently, Wayf, you've never read Dennett, have no intention of ever reading his books, and nonetheless keep on bashing him whenever his name comes up — 180 Proof

Part of my civic duty, I feel. The first I heard of Dennett was when he published a book called 'Consciousness Explained', which I suspected would be fraudulent, and indeed Galen Strawson called for him to be charged under Trade Practices for false advertising.

It seems to me like the mystical tradition is generally much weaker in Protestantism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jacob Böhme being an exception, although subject to severe criticism from the pulpit, but a big influence on German romantics.

the promise of mystical union with the divine seems to be a major part of the "Good News," that is neglected in contemporary accounts of the Gospel. Instead, Christianity is reduced to a story about how one avoids punishment and gains reward. Christianity as a path to freedom — freedom over circumstance, desire, and instinct — the sort of unification of the will Plato and Hegel talk about, is particularly neglected. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100: There was no sense of that dimension in the Christian teachings I received in childhood. It was very much learn by rote and follow the rules. That leads to the dessicated social religion that Christianity has become - 'belief without evidence' as it's usually described here. And that is because so much of the symbolism is derived from the 'spiritual ascent' and only makes sense in relation to that. Now that I understand that, I'm re-considering!

(I've often remarked that the whole purpose of today's culture is to accomodate the human condition, to make it as comfortable as possible, whereas the aim of spiritual culture is to transcend it. It's a hard truth.)

That second image in the OP is associated with The Ladder of Divine Ascent. The article contains a translation, which I shall read.

I find interreligious dialogue between Catholicism and Hinduism to be more apropos and compelling than interreligious dialogue between Catholicism and Buddhism — Leontiskos

Oh, I don't know about that. I mentioned Zen Catholicism, and I've seen some estimable teachers from that school. There are many points of convergence. I also saw the Venerable Bede Griffith, not long before his death - very frail but still vital and serene - a Catholic monk who had settled in an Indian ashram.


Venerable Father Bede Griffith

What follows is that Buddhism and Protestantism do not transplant well — Leontiskos

Buddhism has been a very successful cultural export. From its origins in Maghada in Northern India, it spread along the Silk Road to become a major world religion, indeed the principle religion of Eastern culture.

I've absorbed some crucial elements from Buddhism - not beliefs so much as cognitive skills - which will always stay with me. Whatever doubts I harbor are not about it, but about me.

and yet concludes that active 'Practice' is the key to eudaimonia. My tutor a few years ago, a practical man said, What do the gods talk about all day then? Do they exchange quadratic equations?. Aristotle is not a great explorer of the divine but he acknowledges it is there, and that human speculation and meditation are paths towards it. — mcdoodle

But if happiness [εὐδαιμονία] consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us. Whether then this be the Intellect [νοῦς], or whatever else it be that is thought to rule and lead us by nature, and to have cognizance of what is noble and divine, either as being itself also actually divine, or as being relatively the divinest part of us, it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness; and it has been stated already* that this activity is the activity of contemplation [θεωρητική]. — 1177a11

I’ve become rather intrigued by the association of reason, virtue, and divinity in the ancient and medieval tradition, although it’s very difficult theme to find a summary account of. For Aristotle, reason (nous) was distinct from the processing of sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory, which other creatures possess. For him, discussion of nous is connected to discussion of how the human mind sets definitions in a consistent and communicable way, and whether people must be born with some innate potential to understand the same universal categories in the same logical ways. Hence the connection with universals, on the whole lost to modern philosophy.

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor

You have to realise that modern physics itself is a useful abstraction. It grew from the many thousand year old prior tradition, but made a unique breakthrough with the so-called scientific revolution pioneered by Newton, Galileo, and Descartes to mention several. By breaking with scholasticism and Aristotelian physics, Galileo arrived at the then-revolutionary conception of treating physical objects purely in terms of their measurable attributes, whilst Newton's laws, coupled to Cartesian algebraic geometery, promised to extend the scope of these laws universally.

Key to that was the division of the world - into primary and secondary attributes, first, which are the precisely measurable attributes of physical bodies and their perceived qualities, respectively. Then the Cartesian division of extended matter and immaterial mind. This is the underlying construction between much of the modern worldview. As Thomas Nagel put it:

The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Mind and Cosmos, p35

That is the implicit framework underlying your question, I would suggest. But it's an abstraction. The absolutely determinable objects of early modern physics have since dissolved into the excitations of fields whose attributes are described in terms of degrees of probability, and the discovery of which thrust the role of the observer back into the frame, as it were.

The human body with skin pulled back is obviously mechanical with muscle, bone and tendon obviously arrange to maximize the efficiency of mechanical tasks — Restitutor

But it's not. There are machine-like elements, to be sure, but at the basis, humans (and all other creatures) are organic and not mechanical. They don't operate solely according to the abstractions of physics, in addition there is a much more sophisticated level of activity that occurs even on the level of cell division and growth. The machine metaphor is just that - a metaphor - and you could argue that it's a metaphor that's gone rogue, that is, escaped from its enclosure and wrought havoc in culture at large.

Science says humans are mechanisms — Restitutor

Where? What science? Got any citations for that? Here's one for you, from Ersnt Mayr, one of the leading theoretical biologists of the 20thc

The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years! — The growth of biological thought, Ernst Mayr

I'm not having a go at Timothy in particular, but it's an issue that vexes me. Had a Letter to the Editor published about in Time Magazine, way back when. It's definitely one of the very strange and disturbing anomalies about American culture.

A human being in a dream turning into the Eiffel Tower is absurd, but not perverted. — Moliere

Erika Eiffel (née LaBrie) married the Eiffel Tower (hence the surname) in a commitment ceremony in 2007:

She first encountered the Eiffel Tower in 2004, and said that she felt an immediate attraction. She told ABC News that she and others "[...] feel an innate connection to objects. It comes perfectly normal to us to connect on various levels, emotional, spiritual and also physical for some." In April 2009, on the second anniversary of her marriage to the Eiffel Tower, she appeared on Good Morning America and explained how her object love empowered her. Her 20 year relationship with the Berlin Wall inspired the musical theater production Erika's Wall. — Wikipedia

Eiffel is also founder of OS Internationale, an organization for those who develop significant relationships with inanimate objects. There's also a wikipedia entry on 'Objectum Sexuality'.

I don't know if that is perverted, but it certainly is exceedingly strange.

My long-held conviction is that there's a mistaken equation in American culture between guns and freedom. Guns represent individual sovereignity so in some ways it's an outgrowth of the American insistence on complete individualism. So any attempt to control guns is immediately intepreted as an assault on individual rights, never mind the rights of individuals to go about their lives without suddenly being killed by a deranged gun-owner. All of course aided and expedited by the NRA which is basically an arm of the gun manufacturing industry, and extremely libertarian readings of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

I wonder about the nature of 'theories' and how they stand in philosophy, especially in relation to propositions, which may be concepts rather than empirically measurable. Within science and, in support of theory, there is an emphasis on evidence based ideas. This is fair enough because ideas and concepts without evidence are questionable. — Jack Cummins

The concept of 'theoria' in ancient Greek philosophy, especially in Aristotle, held a different meaning to the modern understanding of 'theory.'

In ancient Greek philosophy, 'theoria' referred to a form of intellectual contemplation. It was about the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, focusing on understanding the fundamental principles and truths of the world. This contemplative approach was seen as a higher, more noble form of activity, often associated with the life of a philosopher or a sage. It was considered an end in itself, a way of achieving a form of intellectual virtue and, ultimately, happiness (eudaimonia).

This stands in contrast to 'praxis,' which was concerned with action and practical application. Praxis was about how knowledge and principles are applied in the real world, focusing on ethical and political action. It involved the practical aspects of living a good life, including moral choices and social responsibilities.

Thus, in Aristotle's philosophy and other Greek thought, 'theoria' and 'praxis' represented two distinct but complementary aspects of human life: the contemplative pursuit of knowledge and the practical application of that knowledge in everyday life. This dichotomy was central to much of ancient philosophy and has influenced various philosophical traditions over time. But it's very different to the modern attitude which is more instrumental and technologically and economically focused. That conditions a lot of the debates about the scope of theory, the limits of knowledge, and so on.

Get over Dennett. He's the poster boy for scientism and scientific materialism. It's scandalous that his output is regarded as philosophy, when by his own reckoning, anything that's ever been understood as philosophy has been dissolved by the 'universal acid' of Darwin's dangerous idea.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/books/review/the-god-genome.html

The thing which I'm really feeling the absence of right now is real spiritual assocation although I'm sure I'm not going to find it in churches. My quest for enlightenment started from the conviction that there really is enlightenment. That was influenced by the culture at the time, I came of age in the 1960's and it was in the air - the Beatles and Maharishi and the counter-cultural interest in spirituality. I pursued that (rather quixotic) interest through a late-entry degree in philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology. Through that I discovered an affinity for Christian mysticism (although also maintained an aversion to 'Churchianity'). But I will say, the more I learned about enlightenment in the sense depicted in the various schools of the philosophia perennis the more I came to see it was there in Christian culture also, if you know where to look for it and how to interpret it. Evelyn Underhill, Dean Inge and Meister Eckhardt were of interest. Also the 'Zen Catholic' movement of Thomas Merton and his successors. There's a small collection of books on Buddhist Christianity (like this one). I just wish there were an association or teacher - not an online one! - that I could associate with in that genre.

I looked up Lublin Thomism, and from the overview page that came up:

Saint Thomas presents a philosophy based on existence, which we may call “existentialism” (but we must avoid any confusion with the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre in this regard). — Brief Overview of Lublin Thomism

That aspect of 'existentialism' appeals to me because of the understanding that 'being is an act'. About the only reading I've done in the area are some brief readings of Jacques Maritain but I believe he is also part of the same broad school of thought. I have been impressed by his essay, The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, because I have become convinced of the reality of universals and aspects of scholastic realism. I also realise that I have been very much influenced by Christian Platonism - I think it's a kind of inborn cultural archetype. Consequently some of the Catholic philosophers I've encountered are intuitively appealing, although I don't feel much drawn to the Church.

I often think that fellow Christians see them as just different philosophical traditions or religions (especially Buddhism) and do not realize the worth they have as lens to view the Bible from. — Dermot Griffin

I've been a student of Buddhism a lot of my adult life, even completing an MA in the subject, and participating in a discussion group for many years. I kept up the practice of sitting meditation as per Buddhist principles for many years, but fell out of the routine three years ago, and haven't gone back to it. I've become sceptical of Western Buddhism - that is, Buddhism as practiced and propogated in modern culture. And while I have considerable respect for the teaching and principles I don't feel as though I've been able to successfully integrate into them or with them. I did have some real epiphanies associated with meditation earlier in life, but then it's been like a 'seeds and weeds' scenario in the subsequent years. (I'm in a quandary about it, although I suppose internet forums aren't really a good medium to air such things.)

Just play the video longer than where Trump says: "It could certainly happen in reverse" in response to the question from Acevedo. — Paine

It's beyond doubt what he says he intends to do:

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”

Trump went on further to state: “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within." — Trump calls Political Enemies Vermin, echoing Dictators Hitler and Mussolini

That "threat" is, of course, the duly elected Government of the United States and the officials of the various Departments which execute the law.

Here is a recent summary by The Economist, a reputable source, of Trump's indictments and upcoming court cases.



The video concludes with how successfully Trump is depicting these cases as political persecution, and the shocking thing is how many people are simply prepared to believe it.

Trump's malfeasance ought to be obvious to anyone who reviewed the January 6th hearings, which as you will recall were produced by a seasoned TV executive so as to cut through all of the technicalities and get to the essence. And yet a large section of the electorate either hasn't seen it, or chooses to turn a blind eye.

I don't think sufficient political or media attention is being paid to Trump's obvious threat to constitutional democracy. There's too much of an acceptance of the 'business as usual' nature of Trump's candidacy, a kind of resignation - 'oh well, look at the polls'. (That is why the various 14th Amendment cases against eligibility may prove crucial.) In any case, the media itself, with the exception of MSNBC and the like, is remiss in not drawing more attention to the obviousness of Trump's intention to disable American constitutional democracy.

The January 6th coup attempt is ongoing.

Is this confluence of science & philosophy a coincidence, or a conspiracy? — Gnomon

I don't think so, but the question is obviously pressing. And why is it pressing? It wouldn't be because those despised 'Intelligent Design' advocates, Michael Behe and others, have actually hit a nerve? Heaven forbid!

How Purposeless Physics underlies Purposeful Life* — Gnomon

I refer again to From Physical Causes to Organisms of Meaning.

I was talking about low crime areas within the United States, of which there are many. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I got that, but in general, the correlation between extremely high rates of gun ownership and high rates of gun-related deaths is indisputable. I'm quite aware that there are areas of the US where not much gun violence is seen but on the other hand, mass shootings can seem to occur practically anywhere in America, with no precedent or any real provocation.

It isn't reductionist — Apustimelogist

…

but it all boils down to making distinctions — Apustimelogist

Sorry, but that is what reductionism is.

In my view, you've developed an idiosyncratic synthesis of reductionist or 'eliminativist' philosophies of mind. I don't know if you've presented it elsewhere, or had your ideas subjected to criticism by others, for example by writing term papers about it, but here you're essentially repeating the same claims such as 'experience is what it is like to be information'. I've tried to explain why I don't think idea holds up, but as my criticism has obviously not struck home, then I'm not going to pursue it any further. Perhaps someone else will chime in at this point, and so long.

The data Count Timothy von Icarus gave doesn’t seem to jive with others — Mikie

Absolutely, that's why I called it out. Blind Freddie can see what is happening with US Gun Crimes.


(Wikipedia)

The Republicans of the Blue state of Colorado had a Centennial Celebration Dinner and did a poll on presidential candidates. Trump won in a landslide. — jgill

He may, nonetheless, not be eligible to appear on the electoral ballot in Colorado, due to his participation in the Jan 6th coup attempt, if a lawsuit there succeeds.

Meanwhile, Trump has been telegraphing his intentions, loud and clear, to gut the bureaucracy, suspend the Constitution, call out the Riot Squad to suppress protests, and go after his enemies in the Department of Justice and FBI. You can bet your boots he would also call off the 2028 Elections. I'm sure this is all part of the fevered revenge fantasies that are playing out in his tortured mind every evening before sleeping, based on his fury at the impudence of mere underlings who are trying to bring him before the Courts. It's why he admires Putin and Kim - he fantasises that he'll be a Strong Man, like them, who can dispose of his enemies in the press and in government by having them killed or exiled to Siberia.

For instance, some have said they believe in something like pure awareness. I don't believe in something like that. — Apustimelogist

Whether you believe in it is beside the point. It has been documented extensively in books on meditative awareness and trance states.

The problem with your argument is that it is essentially reductionist. While it aligns well with information theory and cognitive neuroscience, which view experiences in terms of the brain processing and distinguishing environmental stimuli, explaining how physical processes (like neuronal activity and the making of distinctions) amount to subjective experiences is a different matter. While your argument deals with the functional aspect of cognition (i.e., the brain making distinctions), it doesn't address the explanatory gap between descriptions of physical processes and the subjective quality of experiences—how they occur to, or feel to, a subject of experience. For another example, while it's true that one can develop a deep understanding of the physiology of pain - say for example if you were studying pharmacology or anasthesia - the actual experience of pain is a very different thing to a theoretical understanding of the causes of pain. Until you address that issue you're not actually addressing the problem.

So you don't think the act or event of distinction itself is information? — Apustimelogist

No, I don't. Information is part of it, but it is not only that, as I've said already.

I am just making the claim that information could be simply what its like to be information. And you just disagree. — Apustimelogist

I don't just disagree, I gave an argument, which you haven't responded to, or don't recognise.

I don't know to what extent Hamas represents the political opinions of the Gazan and wider Palestinian population. Do they deserve to be wiped out, at considerable human cost to the civilians they claim to represent? — BC

It's an agonizing conflict. The images we're seeing daily of burned and maimed children undergoing surgery on hospital floors with no anaesthetic, sorrounded by collapsed buildings and the detritus of war, is absolutely appalling. In the past I've generally accepted that the State of Israel has a right to exist but I have to say that Israeli brutality against civilians is severely testing my belief.

As far as Hamas is concerned, their sole rationale is that Israel is an occupying enemy and that the State of Israel must be destroyed. They of course understood that their October 7th attack would provoke a terrible retribution, but their spokemen have gone on the record saying that it is an acceptable price to pay in pursuit of their ultimate aim. They're willing to martyr tens of thousands, whether they want it or not. The major motivation for the Oct 7th attack was to undermine the possible detente between Israel and Saudi Arabia and to bring about a state of chaos and perpetual war, as this is preferable in their mind to any kind of peace which accepts that Israel continues to exist.

I'm trying to keep away from the debates - we have two opposing protests in our region today - as I don't personally have any connection to the conflict, but I just want to register my feelings about this disaster.

@Gnomon - By strange co-incidence, there's another journal article about a very similar idea to the one that this OP was about, which was also published in October.

Comment on this second article appeared in The Conversation, A new theory linking evolution and physics has scientists baffled.... That article refers to (and criticizes) a Nature article, Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution. It starts:

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open-ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3,4,5. We present assembly theory (AT) as a framework that does not alter the laws of physics, but redefines the concept of an ‘object’ on which these laws act.

Compare that with the opening paragraph of the article linked from the OP:

The universe is replete with complex evolving systems, but the existing macroscopic physical laws do not seem to adequately describe these systems. Recognizing that the identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature, we approach a potential “missing law” by looking for equivalencies among evolving systems. We suggest that all evolving systems—including but not limited to life—are composed of diverse components that can combine into configurational states that are then selected for or against based on function. We then identify the fundamental sources of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—and propose a time-asymmetric law that states that the functional information of a system will increase over time when subjected to selection for function(s).

When the second of these two articles appeared in my news feed, I naturally assumed it was about the article that was subject of this OP. But no! It's a completely different article, and with a very different explanatory framework, but they're both addressing the same general issue. The second article - the one I've just encountered - is under pretty heavy criticism from the scientific community for smuggling in 'intelligent design tropes'. The author in The Conversation discussion (a scientist) fails to see the problem the paper is attempting to resolve.

Somehow, I feel the publication of these two articles, from different teams, using different theories, about the same general issue, is more than coincidence (queue X Files theme).

Another example: what you're reading right now may be described in terms of 'pixels on a screen' but what it means is something else again.
— Wayfarer

But is there ever a way to describe it in which it is not information? — Apustimelogist

I can provide information which describes it, but remember the point at issue was your claim that

When we hear music, that is information transmitted into our heads. — Apustimelogist

I am making the point, there is something other than 'information transmission' at work when you hear music, although I guess it's the kind of point which I feel shouldn't have to be made.

“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein

When we hear music, that is information transmitted into our heads. — Apustimelogist

No, that's an analogy for 'hearing music'. Another example: what you're reading right now may be described in terms of 'pixels on a screen' but what it means is something else again.

I am just making the point that experiences are clearly information for us in a very trivial way. I see something, I am distinguishing something: that is information. — Apustimelogist

Right. I moved your comment from that other thread to here because we're touching on the debate about qualia, which is generally associated with the hard problem.

Of course it is true that when we see something we 'distinguish information' but in the case of perception, there is much more to it, because there are factors such as judgement, context, interpretation, and so on. The same information can mean something quite different to two subjects.

I would be interested to hear why you would think this mapping does not hold up, if you did believe that it did not. — Apustimelogist

I'm not sure why that's significant. Anecdotally, I recall reading that studies indicating that the brain can and does re-organise its operations dynamically, so any kind of mapping is hardly a simple 1:1 operation, and again, the human mind deals with many other factors than information.

who's to say that experience is not just what it is like to be information? — Apustimelogist

Speaking of mapping, that doesn't map! The expressions 'what it is like to be a bat' or 'to experience music' or 'see the deep blue of the sea' draw attention to the fact that states of experience are qualities of being. Information, as such, is an abstract term, as we've already suggested, so I don't see how that maps.

There needs to be a mind observing the result to make it a simulation. — RogueAI

:up: That is connected to the topic I explore in The Mind Created World.

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League. — RogueAI

Where he learned enough about tertiary education to set up one of his scams, Trump University.

The New York attorney general sued the company, accusing it of scamming students. Two class action lawsuits alleged the school defrauded students through misleading marketing and aggressive sales tactics.

Trump initially denied the allegations, but he agreed to pay a $25 million settlement to those who attended Trump University in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. Of the thousands of students who attended Trump University between 2005 and 2010, 6,000 are covered for damages under the settlement agreement. — Source

How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? — LuckyR

Hope you don't mind if I but in but I think you have the wrong idea about metaphysics. It's not really 'primitive science' although it is of course true that its origins lie in ancient culture which was not at all scientifically developed in our sense. But the term 'metaphysics' itself comes from Aristotle's works. It was devised by an editor of Aristotle's works, well after Aristotle had died, to distinguish the writings on a set of subjects that come 'after the physics'. Here's a crib:

the different treatises of the collection pursue a general philosophical project or discipline, which Aristotle variously refers to as “wisdom,” “first philosophy” or even “theology.” Such a discipline is described in the Metaphysics as a theoretical science, as opposed to practical and productive sciences, and is sharply distinguished from the other two theoretical sciences, physics and mathematics. Typical of the issues Aristotle deals with are the nature of existence (or more narrowly, 'being'), essence, individuation, identity, Universals, the nature of material and abstract objects, just to mention a few.

Your examples above of how to account for lightning would not, I expect, find their way into these volumes, but more likely in his Physics (although that's only a hunch.) But Aristotle did distinguish metaphysics from the other sciences such as biology and physics.

And metaphysics is not dead! Current issues include:

Nature of Consciousness: exploration of how consciousness arises, whether it can be fully explained by physical processes, and the implications of phenomena like qualia (subjective, individual experiences).

Free Will and Determinism: Modern discussions often intersect with findings from neuroscience and psychology, examining whether human actions are predetermined by neural processes or if there is room for free agency.

Metaphysics of Time: Questions include whether time is fundamental or emergent, the reality of the past and future, the nature of temporal experience, and whether time is really objective or relies on subjective apprehension.

Emergent Properties: debates how complex systems give rise to properties that their individual components do not possess, like how consciousness emerges from brain activity. The discussion also ties into questions about the relationship between mind and matter, and how to account for the subjective unity of experience.

Interpretations of Quantum Physics and the Nature of the Wave Function: includes discussions about the nature of the wave function, which describes the quantum state of a particle or system. Key questions include whether the wave function represents a real physical entity or is merely a statistical tool, the implications of wave function collapse, and the reality of quantum superposition. These debates often touch upon the foundational nature of reality and challenge our classical understanding of the physical world. Different interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and pilot-wave theories, offer varied metaphysical perspectives on these quantum phenomena.

Multiverse Theories: The concept of multiple or parallel universes, arising from cosmology and quantum mechanics, presents metaphysical questions about the nature of reality and existence beyond our observable universe.

Identity and Personal Identity: Questions about what it means for something to be the same over time, and the nature of personal identity, especially in the face of change, continue to be major topics.

Meta-Ontology: This concerns the methodology of metaphysics itself, questioning how we should go about understanding what exists, and the criteria for something to be considered real.

Quite a bit of it cutting-edge! I'm personally interested in the subjects of platonic realism (i.e. the sense in which number is real) and the observer problem in quantum physics. I've noticed an external course in metaphysics run by Oxford, Reality Being and Existence. So - metaphysics lives on.

I made-up the descriptive term "Empirical Philosophy" to refer to posters on this forum, who do not "refrain from making metaphysical commitments" — Gnomon

Sure, I get that. The key point about empiricism generally is 'only trust what you can see, touch and measure.' So in practise it usually amounts to a kind of 'scientism'. That Nicholas Capaldi essay you've linked seems to cover that (although haven't read it yet, but he's a mainstream scholar). At this late stage in life, I've accepted that I'll never read all of Aristotle's metaphysics, but I've come to appreciate some aspects of him through his modern interpreters.

That wikipedia article is unfortunate on Quantum Mysticism. There really is a subject matter there, but due to its nature, it is open to all kinds of misinterpretation and exploitation, as I already mentioned above. But, as the old saying has it, there would be no fools gold, were there no actual gold.