It is not a material substance, but the matter-energy equivalence has been demonstrated in Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2. Ghosts are in no way measurable or observable whatever. So the comparison is fatuous. — Wayfarer

:up:

All due respect, I don’t think you
[@Gnomon] demonstrate understanding of the sources you’re quoting.

:up:

The point remains that energy is an abstract but universal, constant, and predictable property of matter - precisely measurable to minute degrees of accuracy. It is not a material substance, but the matter-energy equivalence has been demonstrated in Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2. Ghosts are in no way measurable or observable whatever. So the comparison is fatuous. — Wayfarer

My point is not that potential EnFormAction (EFA) is thermodynamic Energy, but that Energy is merely one form of Universal Causation*1. which is an abstract concept : an idea. You seem to be taking my analogies literally. But the Map is not the Terrain. So, pardon the riposte, but your physicalist interpretation of EFA is "fatuous". I would expect that from 180poopoo, but not from you.

As I said, even though Energy is invisible & intangible & immaterial, it is considered to be physical precisely because it has measurable effects in the natural world*2. I compared Energy to ghosts, because some people have claimed, throughout centuries of civilization, to find measurable effects of spirits (e.g. ectoplasm) despite their being invisible & intangible & immaterial. The point being that Energy is an Idea (mental inference), not a real thing (physical observation)*3. One of my footnotes above said that Energy is a philosophical "postulation" (from reasoning) not a sensory object. Hence, Energy is Ideal, not Real : like a ghost. For the record, I don't believe in Ghosts, but I do believe that the mental concept of Souls, having demonstrable effects on bodies, has been a fertile notion in the history of philosophy and religion. What did Plato mean by "Soul"?*4

Take biological Evolution for example. Darwin did not observe the process of evolution. He only observed instances of form change in living creatures, and inferred the causal (transforming) procedure by reasoning. He explained his imaginary process (series of actions) in terms of form variation (mutation) and natural selection (conscious Choice?). But what is Nature in this context, but a generalization or reification or representation of a mental concept, not a material object. Science deals with observed particulars, but Philosophy deals with inferred universals.

The evolutionary process could be described physically as the momentum of matter following the Big Bang impetus of cosmic scale Energy. But momentum alone, sans Laws, would result in a brief flash of light, and quick disappearance, like New Year fireworks. However, a more philosophical way to look at Evolution is as a living organism, born in a state of low Entropy and high Energy. How it got in that state, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is another question for conjecture. In addition to the propulsion of the boundless "Bang", evolution has been guided by limiting "Natural Laws". Which are not observed material objects but inferred forms of Information*5.

If you think my philosophical "comparison" of local Energy with universal EnFormAction is "fatuous", what do you thing about Federico Faggin's similar concept of Live Information : "makes no sharp distinction between energy, matter, and information"? Similarly, I use EFA to include all kinds of causes in the universe : from Big Bang singularity, to the transformation of Plasma into Matter, to the Momentum of cosmic expansion, to expansion-slowing Gravity, to atomic Power, to un-actualized Potential, to E = MC^2, to the eventual emergence of Life and Mind. All are the result of causal en-formation (form change). But only Energy is associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you understand the philosophical implications of the scientific sources I'm quoting? :nerd:



*1. For Plato, Forms are the ultimate causes, acting as eternal blueprints or essences that explain why physical things are the way they are.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+form+as+causation

*2. Likewise, EFA has measurable effects in the world : Matter as a form of physical Energy, Living creatures as a form of biological Vitality, Thinking beings as a form of Information Processing activity.

*3. "Inference not observation" highlights the crucial difference between observing (using senses to gather direct facts) and inferring (using logic and prior knowledge to interpret those facts and draw conclusions). An observation is what you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, while an inference is the guess or explanation you form because of those observations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inference+not+observation

*4. Soul : Plato didn't have a concept of modern physical "energy" (\(E=mc^{2}\)), but his philosophy touched on related ideas through concepts like the soul's parts (rational, spirited, appetitive) as driving forces, the "Forms" as perfect essences, and his emphasis on ethereal, unchanging ideals versus the changing physical world (like fire/spirit pointing up vs. earth/body pointing down). He viewed true reality as immaterial Forms, suggesting a different kind of "power" or "being" (essence) than the physical world's constant flux, linking to spiritual or intellectual dynamism rather than kinetic/potential energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+notion+of+energy

*5. Yes, natural laws can be viewed as fundamental information about how the universe or human morality works, describing inherent patterns (physics) or universal ethical principles (philosophy) that are discovered through reason, not invented by humans, providing foundational data for both scientific understanding and moral governance. These laws act as inherent instructions or rules for behavior, whether physical (gravity) or ethical (inherent rights)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+are+information
Note --- For extra credit : Who or What was the Enformer, the Instructor, the Rule-maker? Are those powers inherent in Matter? The Ontological status of the Singularity was originally viewed by Cosmologists as a mathematical limit where the matter & laws of physics disappear into immeasurable infinity. Quick quiz : Was Mother Nature originally a ghost, or an infinity of material worlds?

180poopoo — Gnomon

:lol:

Ghosts are in no way measurable or observable whatever. So the comparison is fatuous.
— Wayfarer

I compared Energy to ghosts ... measurable effects of spirits (e.g. ectoplasm) despite their being invisible & intangible & immaterial ... I do believe that the mental concept of Souls, having demonstrable [subjective, hallucinatory] effects on bodies ...

:sparkle: woo-of-the-gaps supernaturalia :sweat:

The point being that Energy is an Idea (mental inference), not a real thing (physical observation) — Gnomon

This is simply mistaken. Drop that phrase into Google Gemini and see what comes back. No amount of verbalisation is going to alter the facts.

:up:

The point being that Energy is an Idea (mental inference), not a real thing (physical observation) — Gnomon
This is simply mistaken. Drop that phrase into Google Gemini and see what comes back. No amount of verbalisation is going to alter the facts. — Wayfarer

"Scientific facts change because science is a dynamic process of discovery, not a static collection of absolute truths"
180woowoo is getting an ego-boost from your materialist comments, and hard facts. :up:

I don't have Gemini. But here's what Google AI Outlook says :
Yes, energy is fundamentally an idea, a powerful mathematical concept and property in physics that quantifies the capacity for work or change in a system, rather than a tangible "thing" or substance itself, though it describes real physical processes like motion (kinetic) or stored capacity (potential). It's an abstract, conserved quantity, a numerical tool allowing us to predict how the universe behaves and transforms, like a car slowing down (losing kinetic energy, gaining heat).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+an+idea

I'm aware that most Physical scientists like to imagine that Energy is a real substance. And it works, on a superficial level. When you touch a hot stove, you sense the changes in your finger as-if it is caused by flowing Energy. But the molecular form changes are actually caused by transfer of Quantum Information. That statement won't make sense to you, if you are not familiar with the latest, post-Shannon, science of Information*1*2. But most scientists will be reluctant to draw philosophical inferences about a "deeper level"*3. Yet again, EnFormAction is a philosophical metaphysical concept, not a scientific physical fact. :smile:


*1. The relationship between energy and information is profound, suggesting they are deeply linked, with energy required to process information, and information defining how energy is used, often connected through concepts like entropy and thermodynamics (Landauer's Principle linking information erasure to heat), while also showing potential for energy savings via information technologies and a fundamental cycle where structure, energy, and information interact in physical systems, including life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+information+relation

*2. "Energy is information" is a profound concept in physics and philosophy suggesting a deep link, not identity, where information needs energy to exist physically, but energy needs information to do useful work, with some theories proposing information as fundamental to the universe's structure, linking matter, energy, and organization through concepts like entropy and quantum mechanics. It highlights that organized matter (information) extracts energy, while energy itself is just potential until described or ordered.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*3. Scientific American article :
The flow of energy in human societies is regulated by the tiny fraction of energy that is used for the flow of information. Energy and Information are also related at a much deeper level.
https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Energy-and-Information.pdf#:~:text=Today%20we%20know%20that%20it%20takes%20energy,of%20information%20began%20only%20with%20Claude%20E.

PS___ I seem to remember that you have quoted astrophysicist Paul Davies before. This is what he says about a concept of Information*4 that is similar to my notion of EnFormAction.
*4. Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics is a book edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen that explores the concept of information as a fundamental aspect of reality, bridging physics, biology, philosophy, and theology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paul+davies+information+and+the+nature+of+reality

*4. Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics is a book edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen that explores the concept of information as a fundamental aspect of reality, bridging physics, biology, philosophy, and theology. — Gnomon

Look beneath the Planck size, but you may get eyestrain.

*4. Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics is a book edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen that explores the concept of information as a fundamental aspect of reality, bridging physics, biology, philosophy, and theology. — Gnomon
Look beneath the Planck size, but you may get eyestrain. — PoeticUniverse

The Planck scale was computed to establish the universe's minimum physical limit, beyond which material things can no longer be measured (i.e. information extracted). For the purposes of Philosophy though, Information is not a physical object, it's an abstract metaphysical (cognizable) pattern. Yet in Science, those meaningful patterns can be associated with physical things. But, while your eyes cannot see information, your mind can infer meaning. And, as a fundamental element of reality, mental Information applies at all conceivable scales down to Infinity*1.

However, John Wheeler, in his attempt to reconcile Quantum Physics with theories of Gravity, postulated*2 that Quantum Foam might exist at or below the Planck scale, making it difficult or impossible to measure. Hence, you can only imagine the foam, not see it. Therefore, materialists might get Mind-strain from the attempt to percieve what can only be conceived. In the century since, Quantum Foam has not been detected, only conceptualized*3.

I suspect that some commentors in this thread have the mistaken idea that, by "EnFormAction", I'm talking about some eternal spiritual power. Yet, my philosophical thesis does not speculate beyond the available evidence for the Big Bang. So, to keep it real, I try to avoid peering beyond Nature, into SuperNature. Here's an excerpt from a recent blog post. :smile:

Panpsychism vs Enformationism

In Post 130, I discussed the philosophical distinction between the ancient & modern notions of Consciousness as a fundamental force in the world, and my own hypothesis of Causation as more elementary than Mind. Hence, what we know as Mental phenomena — thoughts, percepts, concepts, feelings, etc — did not exist in the physical world until a few million years ago. What necessarily did exist, in order to power the creation of a cosmos from a void or chaos or nothingness, was Causation : the power to create from scratch, and/or to transform from one Form to another. I’m not talking about raw random power, like dynamite, but about Creative Power guided by an “organizational factor”.

That organizing force in Nature is not some supernatural agency, but merely the combination of causal energy and directional information that went Bang about 14B years ago. It is about creativity inherent in nature. The eventual emergence of natural hierarchies & categories is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdoms both having sentience, and the human having self-consciousness and knowledge propagation, especially through language for the social development of philosophical notions, such as Panpsychism.

In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction¹, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy². Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy³, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that En-formation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent⁴ quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page48.html


*1. "Fundamental information" refers to the essential, basic facts forming a foundation for understanding, but in physics, it also describes the radical idea that information (bits), not matter or energy, might be the most basic constituent of reality, with the universe acting like a giant quantum computer processing these bits, potentially explaining dark matter and dark energy through quantum memory
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+fundamental

*2. Postulate : suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
___ Oxford Dictionary

*3. Quantum Foam is Stephen Hegarty's first collection of poetry. It takes as an impetus the baffling realm of quantum theory, which tells us a strange, unknowable fuzziness governs the fundamental nature of reality. The elementary particles are not real, after all; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
https://www.amazon.com/quantum-foam-Stephen-Hegarty/dp/9369542930

↪Gnomon
I won't reply to all your points because I believe that there is a deeper difference between our positions and I think it is possible we will simply "agree to disagree". — boundless

Ironically, I originally got the idea, from your screenname Boundless, that our philosophical positions might be somewhat compatible, but then we seemed to diverge on the mundane topic of Energy. Yet today, I happened to notice the uncommon term "Panentheist"*1 in the thread About Time. So, maybe we have something else to dialogue (both agree and disagree) about.

In recent years, I found A.N. Whitehead's Process Theology *2 compatible with my own secular metaphysical (philosophical) worldview, which, when pushed, I sometimes identify as PanEnDeism, to distinguish it from traditional doctrinal theological religions. For me though, the hypothetical First Cause of the natural world is not experienced as a "feeling, responsive entity". Instead, the "evolving, relational whole" of the Cosmos is an intellectual concept, not a mystical being that I can communicate with & relate to emotionally.

Actually, I emphasize the Causal function (Energy ; EnFormAction) of the supposed Programmer of Big Bang Evolution over the Feeling function of love for humanity. To wit : It only took the God of Genesis seven days to produce living & thinking beings, but the Programmer of Panendeism took over 13 billion years to evolve shrew-like mammals that eventually transformed into animals capable of thinking philosophically.

The concept of computer-like Causation (1s & 0s, positive & negative) gives me more philosophical meat to chew-on than of a Human-like creator, who made us featherless bipeds in his image, then left us alone to deal with the physical & philosophical Problem of Evil. I view Panentheism and PanEnDeism as philosophical cousins, not siblings. So, we should have some relevant notions to both Agree and Disagree on. :halo:


*1. :
Oddly, enough, as a (panen)theist, I actually agree that 'things' arise thanks to a rational mind that is able to distinguish, classify 'things' etc.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16337/about-time/p1

*2. Whitehead's panentheism (Process Theology) posits that God is both immanent within the world (in it) and transcendent beyond it (more than it), with the universe existing within God's being, making God and the cosmos an evolving, relational whole, unlike traditional views where God is static; God has a primordial (unchanging) nature and a consequent (changing, experiencing) nature, growing and feeling with the world, offering persuasive, not coercive, power, and being a feeling, responsive entity rather than a distant, impassive one
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panentheism

*3. Panendeism is a philosophical concept blending pantheism (God is everything) and deism (God created but doesn't interfere), proposing a God who pervades the universe (like pantheism) but also transcends it (like deism), existing beyond it while remaining the all-encompassing divine mind, often with a non-interventionist, "hands-off" approach. It suggests God is both in the universe and greater than the universe, a cosmic intellect or force that is the source of reality but doesn't actively manage day-to-day affairs, unlike traditional theism
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panendeism

Look beneath the Planck size, but you may get eyestrain. — PoeticUniverse

Post-Planck scale Cosmology :

Since has temporarily retired from the philosophical wrestling arena of this forum, I'll address this post to you. That's because, as a philosophical Poet*1, you may be less likely to take my metaphors & analogies literally. Or to turn-up your nose at my invented unsanctioned terminology. I do philosophy, because I like to explore the uncharted margins of reality. Religious & scientific dogmas are passé.

Wayf, among others, objected to my poetic license in using the scientific term "Energy" as a local manifestation of a more universal & diversified force in the world, that I call EnFormAction. The objectors seemed to think I was equating physical Energy with the invisible & spooky Spiritual forces postulated by various religious & philosophical thinkers throughout history : e.g. Biblical Soul*2, and Lao Tse's TAO "the natural, spontaneous flow of the universe".

The topic of this thread is "Cosmos Created Mind", and was prompted by the "science" of Noetics*3, portrayed in a fictional novel, that the Universe, The Whole, The One is essentially an all-encompassing Mind, from which our personal partial ideas & thoughts emerge. As I said, my non-religious philosophical notion of the Cosmos, is more like the abstract Platonic concept, of order, organization, and design that somehow emerged, long ago, from primordial Chaos : unformed Potential.

From a scientific perspective, I tend to equate that inexplicable emergence in terms of the Big Bang : a mysterious (knowable only by inference) First Cause, characterized only by enough Energy [En-] (causal force) to build the kernel of a sphere of matter & energy that is still expanding outward into infinity after 14 billion solar cycles. And enough programming information [Form-] to compute a lawful Cosmos*4 from initial lawless Chaos. And unceasing activity [-Action] in space-time

Somehow, that blast-from-the-past had the "right stuff"*5 to evolve from a dot of primordial plasma into living & thinking beings. The BB theory*6 does not speculate on where the causal Energy & substantial Matter & Organizational Power came from. But Chaos sounds like an ancient notion of Plasma (potential to be formed) : no matter, no structure, just infinite formless energy. Put those necessary elements together, and you get EnFormAction. If you don't like my made-up term though, just call it "Energy" or "Plasma". It's not science, but it also ain't superstition : it's art. :smile:


*1. Poetry is a literary art form using aesthetic and rhythmic language to evoke emotions, capture experiences, and convey deeper meanings beyond literal interpretation,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poetry

*2. The first mention of "soul" in the Bible is in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man from dust, breathes life into him, and "man became a living soul" (or "living being" in modern translations). This verse establishes the Hebrew word nephesh (often translated as soul) as the complete, living person, encompassing body and breath [life], rather than a disembodied spirit, applying to both humans and animals as living creatures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=first+mention+of+soul+in+bible

*3. Noetics : from noesis (direct knowing ; extrasensory).
But it seems to look past mundane objects, to focus on the subjective aspects of the world, as in Aristotle's Poetics : Mimesis, Mythos, Ethos, Catharsis.
Personally, I've never experienced Noesis, but some claim that it's the secret-sauce of Art.

*4. Cosmos : In philosophy, the cosmos refers to the universe viewed as a complete, ordered, harmonious, and interconnected system, contrasting with chaos, emphasizing underlying structure and beauty, rather than just empty space or random events, and often explored through cosmology, the study of its fundamental nature, origins, and laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cosmos+philosophy+definition
Note --- Cosmos = beauty, proportion, harmony

*5. So, we ask a hypothetical question : what is the "right stuff" for evolving living & thinking Matter?
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*6. The Big Bang first created matter in the form of a superhot, dense Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), a soup of fundamental particles (quarks and gluons) that existed for a tiny fraction of a second
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+big+bang+created+the+first+matter+in+the+universe+in+the+form+of

I do philosophy, because I like to explore the uncharted margins of reality. — Gnomon

So do I, and I see that YouTube lately has a lot about a Fundamental Consciousness creating and maintaining all that we take as real, such as my computer that remains intact for me to return to it. That we have realistic dreams, well, sometimes, is a stepping stone to think that all is in the mind, or at least that the same model is employed in waking reality.

Chalmers long ago found consciousness to be fundamental, but is this just covering the "hard problem" of the magic the neurologic giving rise to our conscious awareness of it? Or does consciousness make and operate reality the same as if it was real.

Still, the Great Lama saying "It isn't real" is referring to a messenger, the implementation of reality, rather than the message that would supposedly be the same no matter the means.

To go with the thread topic, there would have to be a quantum field for consciousness that at least allows for our conscious awareness of the neurological information.

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. Then there should have been planets like Earth everywhere if a universal consciousness were in charge.

THE KNOWING from Chaos

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. As I said in the OP, I have difficulty making sense of the concept of the human brain as a receiver of consciousness. Even so, I'm currently reading the book by Federico Faggin (inventor of the Intel 4004 microchip), IRREDUCIBLE. He seems to be a genius-level intellect, and writes very clearly about Quantum Physics and Panpsychism, which he says is a falsifiable physical theory.

However, he hasn't convinced me yet that my thoughts & ideas are actually those of the Cosmic Mind. Surely, The One wouldn't waste time posting on a second-rate feckless philosophy forum. Nevertheless, I find the book very interesting. And, until I have a life-changing spiritual experience like his, I'll keep an open mind --- tuned to 2400 MHz --- about the 99.44% of reality that I know nothing about. :smile:

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse

I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. I thikn dismissing it out of hand, in the current situation, is also a bit far.

To go with the thread topic, there would have to be a quantum field for consciousness that at least allows for our conscious awareness of the neurological information. — PoeticUniverse

Even though I'm an untrained amateur philosopher, I disagree to-some-degree with Chalmers about Consciousness being fundamental. God-like omniscience would make sense for a miraculous instantaneous act of creation. Instead, I view Causation as the basic necessity for our ever-evolving-but-not-yet-there world. However, the First Cause of our Big-Bang-beginning must have included both cosmic scale Power/Energy and a directional program (Natural Laws ; information) to guide this material missile to its intended target. Note ---That evolution has a direction & destination is an inference from the "arrow of time"*1.

Therefore, I view the disorganization & confusion and pain & suffering in the current world, as what you would expect for an incomplete process of Becoming. If you look at a computer program in the middle of operations, before it has executed the final instruction, it may look incomplete and meaningless. Darwinian Evolution may portray the universe as merely a series of steps in no particular direction. But Metaphysical or Mathematical Philosophy may imagine Evolution as-if a computer program*2 working toward some ultimate solution. People & trees are merely aspects of the current iteration.

I don't necessarily impute Consciousness to the Universal Quantum Field postulated by physicists. But if that mathematical array does exist in any meaningful sense, it must contain universal Information (statistical & syntactical), of which our human "neurological information" is a local manifestation. That we are aware of a physical pattern inside our brains, is of course, an amazing act of self-Consciousness. :smile:


*1. The "arrow of time" describes time's apparent one-way flow from past to future, a fundamental mystery because most physics laws are time-reversible, but our universe shows clear directionality, explained primarily by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and increasing entropy (disorder). Stephen Hawking identified three arrows: psychological (memory), thermodynamic (entropy), and cosmological (universe expansion), all pointing forward in our experience, originating from the universe's low-entropy state at the Big Bang, a question still under investigation
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=arrow+of+time

*2. Intentional Programming :A computer program does not have "intention" in the human sense of conscious desire or purpose. Instead, "intention" in programming refers to a design philosophy and a bridge between human thought and machine execution
. Modern software engineering is shifting from strict instruction-driven coding to intentional programming, which focuses on capturing the what (the goal or intent of the user) rather than just the how (the step-by-step instructions
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intentional+programming

Note ---That evolution has a direction & destination is an inference from the "arrow of time" — Gnomon

:roll:

Yeah, well, if you insist (discounting e.g. R. Penrose's hypothetical Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, etc): the Second Law of Thermodynamics (re: "arrow of time") – towards maximum entropy (i.e. classical heat death of this universe).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

NB: Just because this a philosophy forum, Gnomon, doesn't give you license to wantonly – incorrigibly – propose ludicrously pseudo-scientific notions & terms camouflaged (i.e. rationalized) as mere "amateur" speculation. It's not that. Your so-called "worldview" as espoused on this forum (and also your blog) – obvious to any freethinker (intellectually honest person) – is nothing but "New Age" sophistry. :sparkle:

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1030813

the First Cause of our Big-Bang-beginning must have included both cosmic scale Power/Energy and a directional program (Natural Laws ; information) to guide this material missile to its intended target. — Gnomon

How come the Universe is a wasteland of failed planets? Why not success everywhere, as here?

How come the Universe is a wasteland of failed planets? Why not success everywhere, as here? — PoeticUniverse

That's a question you'll have to ask of the Programmer of the cosmic system*1. How is "success" defined? A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy emphasizes Becoming over Being. If that doesn't make sense to you, then perhaps a philosophy of Nihilism would answer your question : there is no Why, only a series of disconnected Whats.

My only experience with a planet is of the successful living & thinking blue-green ball we call Earth, along with its support system of "failed planets"*2. And my god-model is similar to Spinoza's 17th century Nature-god. Except, I take into account the fact, that 20th century secular scientists have concluded that the observable Cosmos is not eternal, as Baruch imagined. So all we know is the middle of the process of Becoming, and any Being prior to that Beginning is a mystery, beyond the scope of science. Therefore, philosophically, I concern myself with Here & Now, not with imaginary "failed planets" or a heavenly hereafter. :smile:


*1. Philosophical Systems are comprehensive, structured frameworks of thought, ethics, and beliefs that provide a cohesive, often all-encompassing, lens for interpreting reality, existence, and knowledge. These systems, such as stoicism, existentialism, or idealism, act as intellectual guides, shaping how individuals understand the world and their place within it
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+systems
Note --- No System, no Science.

*2. Key Planetary Support Mechanisms for Earth
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=solar+system+planets+support+for+earth

THE BLUE GREEN BALL

The blue green ball
Hope is brought
Enjoyment is had

Blue green ball
Long can bounce
Unlimited fun
Enjoy the ball

Green ball
Running after
Embrace the fun
Enter the fray
No end to the play

Ball of green blue
Amazing you are
Lovely is the sight
Loneliness is not to be

Allen Hollandsworth

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse
I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. I thikn dismissing it out of hand, in the current situation, is also a bit far. — AmadeusD

Yes, the notion that human ideas are received from the Ether*1, instead of generated by the brain, is an interesting (strange) concept. But what philosophical problem is that notion a "potential solution" to? Perhaps as a pseudo-scientific alternative to the religious Bible God : meddling in human history directly for generations [Adam & Eve, Moses, Mohammad, etc] , then absconding for 20 centuries, after writing a new anthology of confusing myths & doctrines. Does CosmicGod now communicate directly again? If so, perhaps my mis-tuned receiver is missing the message.

Rather than "dismissing" the idea of brain-as-reciever "out of hand", I tossed it to the Forum for discussion in this thread. But so far, the core idea has not been directly addressed. Do you have any information to contribute on the subject? I'm currently reading a book on a related topic, Scientific Idealism*3. The author goes into deep detail about the postulated Universal Quantum Field (QFT)*4, but doesn't directly deal with the details ["explanatory power"] of how the human brain works as a receiver of CosmicDivine Information. And why? :smile:

PS___ I don't dismiss the Noetic notion from prejudice. I actually have a parallel hypothesis, not of a Consciousness Field, but of a Causal (potential energy) Field, that eventually evolved Consciousness after billions of years of unconscious Physicalism/Materialism. But I don't know how such a field could pump ideas into brains. Instead, I imagine that ideas emerge from normal brain processes.


*1. Noetic Field Theory (NFT) and Noetic Science suggesting the brain acts as a receiver/transceiver of consciousness rather than its sole generator. This theory implies that consciousness exists independently in a nonlocal field, with the brain and potentially the "gut-brain" (enteric nervous system) tuning into this information, enabling intuitive, remote, and precognitive experiences
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+brain+reciever

*2. Direct communication from God is the belief in immediate, personal interaction with the divine, bypassing intermediaries to receive guidance, revelation, or comfort. It manifests through prayer, inner promptings of the Holy Spirit, dreams, visions, or audible voices. This direct connection is considered essential for a personal relationship, providing clarity, purpose, and spiritual truth.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=direct+communication+from+god

*3.Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature
by physicist Federico Faggin is a non-fiction, multidisciplinary book blending physics, philosophy, and cognitive science. It proposes that consciousness is a fundamental, irreducible feature of reality, arguing against materialism and proposing that information is experienced only by conscious agents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+kind+of+book+is+irreducible+by+faggin

*4. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) posits that the universe is not made of isolated particles, but rather fundamental, invisible fields that permeate all of space-time. Everything, from matter to forces, consists of excitations or "vibrations" in these fields. It acts as a unified framework combining quantum mechanics and special relativity, where particles are simply energy disturbances
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field

I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience ; which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. — AmadeusD

I just came across another reference to the Consciousness transmitter/receiver notion of Noetics*1.
Since I don't have a subscription, I couldn't read the article. And I don't know who the "scientist" is. But it may be Federico Faggin, who claims to have "first hand experience" ; which is "unhelpful" for me --- since my receiver is not tuned to spiritual stations.

Ironically, Faggin's quantum physics "explanation" is characterized by Probability & Uncertainty, so it may leave too much room for reading-in personal prejudices. Nevertheless, I find the Noetics concept philosophically interesting, though not convincing. So, I continue to explore the higher dimensions of Ideality (not necessarily Reality). :chin:

*1. Human Consciousness Comes From a Higher Dimension, Scientist Claims—Meaning It Could Transcend the Physical World
When we think creatively or have “Eureka” moments, we may actually unlock access to a dimension outside of our everyday perception, according to the controversial theory.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a69438408/consciousness-comes-from-higher-dimension/
Note --- Or we may simply imagine alternative realities. In recent years Popular Mechanics magazine seems to have strayed into popular philosophy.

Nevertheless, I find the Noetics concept philosophically interesting, though not convincing. — Gnomon

I agree. You might get a kick out hte Institute for Noetics - I think the basic premise is that ineffable experience indicates something beyond perception with regard to consciousness. Weird stuff - but I have to give full disclosure: I used to think that was a done deal.

I agree. You might get a kick out hte Institute for Noetics - I think the basic premise is that ineffable experience indicates something beyond perception with regard to consciousness. Weird stuff - but I have to give full disclosure: I used to think that was a done deal. — AmadeusD

"Ineffable experiences"*1 used to be attributed to visitations from God or Holy Spirit, in a specific religious context : e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Hindu. But now mystical feelings are being explained in more scientific & physical terms. And they may cross lines of religious doctrine.

Full disclosure : I was raised in a non-denominational fundamentalist Christian church. but its posture was anti-Catholic-dogma, and downplayed the mystical aspects of traditional religions. So, the closest I came to a spiritual experience, was a visit to a "holy roller" church, where I observed speaking (babbling) in "unknown tongues (angelic language?). That baby-talk didn't impress me much.

Noetics labels itself as a "science", not a religion. And the terminology is based on statistical Quantum Physics, which is quite spooky compared to deterministic classical physics. Hence, it seems to leave authoritarian scriptural (doctrinal) religions behind, in favor of a personal experiential (mystical) worldview. That makes sense to me, except for my lack of life-changing spiritual epiphany. Meanwhile, I make-do with the mundane rational experience of linguistic philosophy. So for me, it's not a "done deal". :cool:

its a really interesting potential solution. — AmadeusD

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? Presumably, it offers an answer to Chalmer's Hard Problem of how mundane Matter could become Conscious. And the proposed explanation is that Matter itself is derived from fundamental Consciousness, as in Panpsychism. But, my own scientific "solution", also based on Quantum Physics and Information Science, is that human-like Consciousness is emergent, not fundamental. Hence, not exactly Noetic. But some universal power may be essential. :nerd:


*1. A spiritual experience is a profound, often transformative, subjective event involving a sense of connection to something greater than oneself, such as God, nature, or universal consciousness. These experiences can bring feelings of intense peace, awe, or unity. They are characterized by ineffability, or difficulty in expressing them, a feeling of deep insight (noetic quality), and often, a lasting, positive change in life perspective or personality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spiritual+experience

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? — Gnomon

The entire issue of private experience. If private experiences (and in this case, the noetic quality of those experiences) are derived from a wide-dimensioned, and accessible, world of sensation that not only opens the Hard Question (doesn't solve it) to much richer and more interesting theories (and sets down many of hte mundane as untenable) but it also means we can finally talk about qualities like "satisfaction" in terms that have to do with something beyond our "earthly realm".

So that was a shoddy wording without saying, look, it solves a number of tensions but raises the further questions. It would just put paid to several currently-well-loved theories..

I have a feeling you will quite like this short TED talk by a Johns Hopkins researcher. It is specific to a certain medical detail, but the discussions of hte metrics used are highly relevant here.

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? — Gnomon
The entire issue of private experience. — AmadeusD

Spiritual & mystical experiences used to be long-hard work --- prayer, meditation, mortification --- for those who wanted to "experience" God directly, instead of via Faith in authoritative scriptures. Now, where legal, people can have instant God-on-demand by ingesting Entheogens*1. Or, if they pick the wrong mushrooms, they may meet God face-to-face in the afterlife, sooner than expected.

Unfortunately, I grew-up in a non-mystical religious culture that eschewed mind-altering drugs of all kinds, especially alcohol. Consequently, I survived the hippie sixties without any mystical experiences. In 1967 Jimi Hendrix sang : "But first, are you experienced? Or have you ever been experienced? Well, I have". . . . . Well I haven't. :smile:


*1. Entheogen : Greek. to create divine in mind
Together, the term entheogen refers to a substance that "generates the divine within," typically producing feelings of inspiration, religious ecstasy, or spiritual insight. The term hallucinogen was deemed inappropriate owing to its etymological relationship to words relating to delirium and insanity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Entheogens

Not necessarily stoned,
but beautiful

:victory: :cool:

:grin:

No one will get that reference.

"Not necessarily beautiful, but mutated"

Travesty.

Right, they have also butchered 'Satisfaction' by the Rolling Stones. :cool: Their use of parody, or counter acting rythms that ruin the groove or swing of a tune are features of what the band imagines to be an ongoing de-evolution of our spieces (hence their name, Devo). Not everyone gets it, allegedly the Hendrix estate hated it.

I still have the album in my neglected record collection