And a "bit" is a binary digit, expressed as a mathematical ratio*2. Which, incidentally is the root of "Reason" and "Rational". :nerd: — Gnomon

Not sure how you intend the sentence I just quoted. But I want to clarify:

As the Latin root of modern English “reason” and “rational”, “ratio” is the noun form of the Latin terms “reor” and/or “ratus”. These latter two Latin terms have multiple definitions (from "having judged" to "to consider" and a lot more aside), but all these definitions make indispensable use of discernment – by which I here mean a cognized distinction between some X and some Y that are bound by some relation (e.g., an object and its background), this regardless of whether one focuses on X, Y, or the relation between.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

*2. EnFormAction :
*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons. The ability to know & interpret the non-self world is what we call Awareness or Consciousness : to make distinctions ; to parse random complexity into meaningful patterns.
*** The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon

I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. But those terms do make sense in the context of the cultures and traditions in which they were meaningful. I suppose in terms of an ostensible ultimate, I could assent to 'dharma', which is from the Indic root meaning 'what holds together'. There are convergences between 'dharma' and 'logos'.

For me the Source of all power in the universe remains a mystery, beyond the scope of empirical Science. — Gnomon

Indeed, and a major part of the kind of philosophy I've pursued is realisation of that - the 'way of unknowing' or 'way of negation', expressed in various idiomatic ways. We ourselves are beyond the scope of empirical science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Unfortunately, any metaphysical worldview (an -ism, like Materialism) can be turned into a dogmatic cult/religion by gurus who are motivated to gather admiring followers, who don't think for themselves. — Gnomon

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



Modern science doesn't necessarily imbue those qualites (although it might, amongst some of its exponents). But the difference is, scientific method assumes the separation of knower and known, whereas in traditional philosophical discipline, these are not necessarily separate domains.

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

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

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

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

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

How did you add the "Reveals" to your post? — Gnomon

When you're in Edit mode, notice the 'eye' icon in the controls (for 'hide and reveal). Select the text and click on it.

That passage about Pierre Hadot makes the point that philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice and (I suppose) self improvement (although I don't like that term much) rather than just arguments about concepts. I'm no exemplar of the classical virtues although I did go through a long period of daily Buddhist meditation. But somehow, you have to change your frequency, like tuning in to the right wavelength.

After all, say what you will about 'materialistic science', its practical benefits in technology, medicine, transport, food production, and countless other areas has been astoundingly productive. So if philosophy has anything to contribute, it is in learning how to live more contentedly, without needless wants.

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

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

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

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


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

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

More seriously, I suppose my Practice of writing down my philosophical thoughts, and subjecting them to criticism, is a form of Praxis. — Gnomon

I think it is. I'm sure you all your efforts are driven by what used to be understood as a calling. It's how to answer that is the challenge!

Incidentally about praxis - rather a good Wikipedia article on that also

That passage about Pierre Hadot makes the point that philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice and (I suppose) self improvement (although I don't like that term much) rather than just arguments about concepts. — Quixodian

Also included is the idea that without praxis, one's theory will be limited and stunted. Hadot thus points to a deep interrelation between the two in the world of ancient philosophy. Here is a nice quote:

The Stoics made a distinction between philosophy, defined as the lived practice of the virtues of logic, physics, and ethics, and "discourse according to philosophy;" which was theoretical instruction in philosophy. The latter was in turn divided into the theory of physics, the theory of logic, and the theory of ethics. This distinction had a quite specific meaning within the Stoic system, and it could be used in a more general way to describe the phenomenon of "philosophy" in antiquity. Throughout this investigation, we have recognized the existence of a philosophical life—more precisely, a way of life—which can be characterized as philosophical and which is radically opposed to the way of life of nonphilosophers. On the other hand, we have identified the existence of a philosophical discourse, which justifies, motivates, and influences this choice of life. Philosophy and philosophical discourse thus appear to be simultaneously incommensurable and inseparable. — Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, p. 172

Note - I am reopening a thread that has been off the front page for a while. I just saw the article I've linked below and I thought people might be interested. I haven't come to any opinion about it's contents.

Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar

A letter, signed by 124 scholars and posted online last week, has caused an uproar in the consciousness research community. It claims that a prominent theory describing what makes someone or something conscious — called the integrated information theory (IIT) — should be labelled “pseudoscience”. Since its publication on 15 September in the preprint repository PsyArXiv, the letter has some researchers arguing over the label and others worried it will increase polarization in a field that has grappled with issues of credibility in the past. — Nature

Thanks!

How apropos. I was just pointing out to wonderer1 in another thread how flimsy scientific theories of consciousness are. Now one of the leading ones get's called pseudoscience. Well, well.

how flimsy scientific theories of consciousness are — RogueAI

As I noted in my post, I don't have an opinion on the particular positions described in the article, but I don't think scientific theories of consciousness are "flimsy" or "pseudoscience." I won't go any further now - I've had enough of "consciousness" for a while.

Thanks! — wonderer1

I've had enough of consciousness for a while. — T Clark

So you're unconscious at the moment?

So you're unconscious at the moment? — Patterner

I edited my previous post for clarity.

:lol:

I feel 'flimsy pseudo-science' is an apt description for modern academic consciousness studies. .

It is flimsy because it has no metaphysical foundation and pseudo-science because it does not study consciousness scientifically. .

I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and was disgusted by the poor quality of the work. It's not an area of study but a club for people who need to get published. .

Pardon my strong views. I feel;the general public are being duped and scientific standards are being abused, and that academics should behave more responsibly. . .

I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and was disgusted by the poor quality of the work. It's not an area of study but a club for people who need to get published. — FrancisRay

There is a matter of perspective here. You should have seen the state of things 36 years ago, when I started looking into the subject. The progress in understanding since then has been substanantial. Considering the complexity of the subject under study, the technological difficulties in gathering detailed information, and the (IMO) warranted ethical restrictions faced by researchers, I'd say we social primates are doing pretty good.

There is a matter of perspective here. You should have seen the state of things 36 years ago, when I started looking into the subject. The progress in understanding since then has been substanantial. Considering the complexity of the subject under study, the technological difficulties in gathering detailed information, and the (IMO) warranted ethical restrictions faced by researchers, I'd say we social primates are doing pretty good. — wonderer1

At least the scientific community now accepts that consciousness exists and this is certainly progress. I don't share your view that it is making progress otherwise, but don't rule out the possibility. I suspect we'll have to wait for one of Kuhn's generational paradigm shifts. .