My own view is that mind and the body are more like two 'sides of the same coin' rather than two separate things. But, again, there is so much unknown...
I'm not a fan of the 'software/hardware' analogy because it risks to lead us to either anthropomorphize machines or to think that we are 'like machines'. — boundless

So you don't distinguish between the living and thinking aspects of your being? Do you think you are all Mind, or all Body? The all-body view, with Mind minimized as epi-phenomenon, is known as Materialism or Physicalism. Yet, that physical-only perspective limits your ability to do Philosophy of Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics.

That's why the early philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle adopted the worldview now known as Dualism. Aristotle tried to avoid Supernaturalism though, by postulating two different kinds of Substance : Hyle (matter) and Morph (form). Ironically, early theologians labeled those substances as physical Body & metaphysical Soul. However, I have adopted a 21st century version of Aristotle's Morph, with the modern concepts of Energy and Information*1 in place of Plato's supernatural Form. That way, I can have the best of both worlds : physical Science (hyle) and metaphysical Philosophy (morph).

You could say that my version of the Mind/Body duality is also "two-sides of the same coin". But in this case, the "coin" is Causal or Active Information*2*3, in the same sense that Energy can take-on the radically different forms of both Light and Matter (E = MC^2). To get into that complex unconventional worldview (Reality + Ideality) would require a separate thread. :wink:

PS___ Metaphorically, we are like machines, except in the sense of self-consciousness : knowing that we know. AI knows a lot of stuff, and uses self-reference, but it will admit that it doesn't feel what it's like to know itself.


*1. En-Form-Action is a metaphysical concept, primarily discussed on philosophy forums, that describes the inherent power or process within the universe to transform potential (information, design, essence) into actual (form, structure, matter), acting as a bridge between pure information and physical reality, often linked to physics concepts like \(E=mc^{2}\) but with deeper philosophical implications about creation, causality, and the nature of mind and matter. It's seen as a "creative power" or "intentional causation" that drives evolution and complex arrangement, proposing a deeper layer to materialism by integrating information/ideal forms with the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- this is a Google AI overview, not my words

*2. Causal Information theory blends information theory with causality, using concepts like information flow and conditional independence to quantify relationships, discover causal structures in data (like causal skeletons), and understand how much control one variable has over another, moving beyond simple correlation to identify directed influences, especially in complex systems like turbulence or deep learning, offering tools for causal inference where experiments are hard. It provides measures like "causal information gain" (reduction in uncertainty from intervention) and is used in AI/ML for robust generalization, with applications in analyzing neural networks and designing experiment
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=causal+information+theory
Note --- Useful for the "hard" problem of Consciousness.

*3. Active Information Theory isn't one single theory but refers to concepts where information isn't just passive data but an active physical entity influencing reality, notably in David Bohm's quantum physics (information as activity), and in Active Inference (ActInf), a framework where agents (like brains) minimize "surprise" (prediction errors) by updating models (perception) and acting on the world (action) to maintain existence and reach expected states. It bridges perception and action, explaining how organisms predict and interact, often linked to minimizing free energy and updating internal generative models, with applications from neuroscience to robotics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=active+information+theory

So you don't distinguish between the living and thinking aspects of your being? Do you think you are all Mind, or all Body? The all-body view, with Mind minimized as epi-phenomenon, is known as Materialism or Physicalism. Yet, that physical-only perspective limits your ability to do Philosophy of Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics. — Gnomon

Personally, I think that I am mind and body. As an analogy, think of a 'plastic bottle'. The 'plastic bottle' is both 'plastic' and 'a bottle'. Neither of them describe what a 'plastic bottle' is in its entirety. And you can't 'reduce' one into the other.

That's why the early philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle adopted the worldview now known as Dualism. Aristotle tried to avoid Supernaturalism though, by postulating two different kinds of Substance : Hyle (matter) and Morph (form). Ironically, early theologians labeled those substances as physical Body & metaphysical Soul. — Gnomon

Interestingly, in Christian theology the 'human being' is complete if both 'soul' and 'body' are present. Anyway, the dualism of Aristotle and the Christians wasn't like Cartesian dualism. The latter asserts that the 'mind/soul' and the 'body' are different substances. Aristotle and the Christians held that they are two essential aspects of the same substance.
This is quite close to my own view.

However, I have adopted a 21st century version of Aristotle's Morph, with the modern concepts of Energy and Information*1 in place of Plato's supernatural Form. That way, I can have the best of both worlds : physical Science (hyle) and metaphysical Philosophy (morph). — Gnomon

I can see that. But IMO 'energy' isn't the right thing to appeal to for 'form'. I believe that Bohm and Hiley's 'active information' is much more congenial to your purposes.

But in this case, the "coin" is Causal or Active Information*2*3, in the same sense that Energy can take-on the radically different forms of both Light and Matter (E = MC^2). — Gnomon

Both 'light' and 'matter' would actually be forms of 'matter'/'body'. Their structure perhaps is something more understandable as 'form'.

Personally, I think that I am mind and body. As an analogy, think of a 'plastic bottle'. The 'plastic bottle' is both 'plastic' and 'a bottle'. Neither of them describe what a 'plastic bottle' is in its entirety. And you can't 'reduce' one into the other. — boundless

So you do distinguish between the material (plastic) and it's function (bottle). Materialism does try to "reduce" mind (function) to brain (matter). But we don't have to deny the substantial role of Brain in order to discuss the essential role of Mind. Holism is Both/And not Either/Or. :smile:

Interestingly, in Christian theology the 'human being' is complete if both 'soul' and 'body' are present. Anyway, the dualism of Aristotle and the Christians wasn't like Cartesian dualism. The latter asserts that the 'mind/soul' and the 'body' are different substances. Aristotle and the Christians held that they are two essential aspects of the same substance.
This is quite close to my own view. — boundless

I agree. A Soul without a body is a Ghost. And a ghost is an incomplete person. I've never met a person with only a body/brain, or without a soul/mind. But Christian dualism views the Soul as distinct from the body*1. In other words, a body without a soul is dead meat. In my own musings though, I try to avoid getting into theology, by using scientific terms where possible. Hence a human Person is more than a body/brain, she is a complex adaptive system of physical Matter and metaphysical Mind. So, mind without body is a disembodied spirit, and body without life/mind is road kill. Note that I combine Life & Mind to imply that those two functions are on the same continuum of Causation. :cool:

I can see that. But IMO 'energy' isn't the right thing to appeal to for 'form'. I believe that Bohm and Hiley's 'active information' is much more congenial to your purposes. — boundless

My use of the physical term for causation, Energy, is merely for ease of understanding in common language. In my thesis, physical Energy is merely one of many manifestations of general universal EnFormAction*2. Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable?*3 :nerd:

Both 'light' and 'matter' would actually be forms of 'matter'/'body'. Their structure perhaps is something more understandable as 'form'. — boundless

I would prefer to say that both light and matter are emergent forms of Energy/Causation*4. Photons are often imagined as particles of Matter, even though they are holistic Fields of Energy that have the potential to transform into particular bits of matter. The "structure" of a Field is mathematical/metaphysical, while the structure of Matter is empirical/physical. Anyway, I too understand both physical arrangements and metaphysical patterns as different configurations of Platonic Form. But our materialistic language makes it hard to express those concepts without sounding abstruse. :wink:


*1. "Soul as substance" views the soul as a fundamental, independent entity (substance) that constitutes a person, distinct from the physical body, often described as an immaterial form or principle giving life and identity, prominent in philosophies like Aristotle's (as the body's form) and Christian thought (as an immaterial, personal essence). This contrasts with viewing the soul merely as an emergent property or function of the brain, proposing it's a real, enduring entity that can potentially survive physical death, forming the basis of substance dualism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=soul+as+substance

*2. EnFormAction : A term coined specifically to indicate that physical Energy is a particular form (manifestation) of a broader concept of Causation that includes Information. It is similar to Bohm's Active Information, but also to many other causal & consciousness concepts over the ages.
"They are all subsumed under the thesis-coined concept of EnFormAction (EFA), which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient & modern hypothetical notions of evolutionary emergence such as Stoic Vitalism, Spinoza’s Conatus, Bergson’s Elan Vital, Schopenhauer’s Will-to-live, and A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy." https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Information is Energy: Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Energy-Definition-physically-information/dp/3658408618

*4. Photon is Form : A photon isn't a traditional "state of matter" like solid, liquid, or gas because it's a massless particle of pure energy, the quantum of light, exhibiting wave-particle duality. While it's not matter (which has rest mass), it carries energy and behaves like a wave or particle, making it fundamentally different from objects with mass, though it's sometimes described as a "massless particle" or part of a "photon gas" in extreme conditions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+state+of+matter+is+a+photon

So you do distinguish between the material (plastic) and it's function (bottle). Materialism does try to "reduce" mind (function) to brain (matter). But we don't have to deny the substantial role of Brain in order to discuss the essential role of Mind. Holism is Both/And not Either/Or. :smile: — Gnomon

I wouldn't say that 'mind' is a 'function'. Rather something more like an 'inner' aspect of an entity. In other words, you can't detect qualitative experience ('qualia') precisely because the mind isn't 'public' like the body.

I agree. A Soul without a body is a Ghost. And a ghost is an incomplete person. I've never met a person with only a body/brain, or without a soul/mind. But Christian dualism views the Soul as distinct from the body*1. In other words, a body without a soul is dead meat. In my own musings though, I try to avoid getting into theology, by using scientific terms where possible. Hence a human Person is more than a body/brain, she is a complex adaptive system of physical Matter and metaphysical Mind. So, mind without body is a disembodied spirit, and body without life/mind is road kill. Note that I combine Life & Mind to imply that those two functions are on the same continuum of Causation. :cool: — Gnomon

The ancients viewed the 'soul' as the 'life principle'. So, a 'soulless' body is a dead body because its 'form' is incompatible with life, not because the body has lost 'something material' that could be detectable.

In other words, a purely 'beaviourist' account of, say, a human being is in a sense correct but incomplete as it neglects the 'private' aspect of experience. However, this doesn't mean that we can't say if, for instance, someone is dead even if we can't strictly speaking the detects his or her mind.

Regarding Christian dualism, in a sense yes body and soul are distinct but conceptually they are also for Aristotle, for instance. However, notice that for them the human being is 'complete' if it has both soul and the body. And the 'human being' is 'perfected' at the resurrection in which the body also is perfected. In other words, Christianity clearly sees human beings as embodied creatures and not just 'souls trapped in bodies' as Plato (or Descartes) would say (however, I would avoid to go off-topic and discuss about the specifics of Christian 'dualism').

Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable? — Gnomon

Are you sure that they aren't comparing perhaps information to the 'patters' in which energy is stored and transferred rather than to 'energy' itself.

Photons are often imagined as particles of Matter, even though they are holistic Fields of Energy — Gnomon

Photons are just particles with zero rest mass/energy. They aren't said to be 'material' because it has been arbitrarily decided to call 'material' only what has rest mass/energy (or what isn't a mediator of an interaction). However, photons are just as 'natural' or 'physical' as electrons. So, I'm not sure why people do not want to call them 'material' (the word 'matter' also comes from 'mother', i.e. 'Mother Nature'... so 'material' and 'natural' seems to mean the same except in technical language of the physicists).

Anyway, I too understand both physical arrangements and metaphysical patterns as different configurations of Platonic Form. — Gnomon

Platonic forms are thought to be transcendent from the natural world. Do you think that these 'arragnements and patterns' would still exist if there was no world?

I wouldn't say that 'mind' is a 'function'. Rather something more like an 'inner' aspect of an entity. In other words, you can't detect qualitative experience ('qualia') precisely because the mind isn't 'public' like the body. — boundless

When I said that Mind is what the Brain does, thinking & feeling, I was taking a Functionalist stance instead of a Substance position on the Hard Problem. A function emerges from doing. The "inner aspect" notion could mean that Mind is like the Soul, an immaterial add-on (spiritual substance) to the material body ; or it could merely refer to a feature or function of the human body/brain. An "aspect" is simply a way of looking at something. So, I guess we're just quibbling about words, about appearances : how things seem to the observer. :smile:

The ancients viewed the 'soul' as the 'life principle'. So, a 'soulless' body is a dead body because its 'form' is incompatible with life, not because the body has lost 'something material' that could be detectable. — boundless

When you say "its form is incompatible with life", I read that its conceptual design is lacking some essential feature or factor (the right stuff)*2. I'm familiar with Plato's and Aristotle's usage of the term Form to describe something similar to the mathematical description, or conceptual design, of a material body. But I tend to favor a more modern understanding of the underpinnings of reality. Whereas Aristotle mixed material Hyle and immaterial Morph to produce the things we see in the world, I prefer to combine causal Energy and meaningful Information into a vital force (EnFormAction)*2, that evolved from a primordial burst of Energy (Big Bang) into the living & thinking features of our current reality. This does not invalidate Ari's hybrid stuff, but it's just a more up-to-date way of describing how Life & Mind --- both invisible & intangible, known (detectable) only by what they do (their function) --- emerged from eons of material evolution. :nerd:

Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable? — Gnomon
Are you sure that they aren't comparing perhaps information to the 'patters' in which energy is stored and transferred rather than to 'energy' itself. — boundless

Yes & no. Actually, "information" is merely the "pattern" by which we know things and ideas. Our modern understanding of Energy is not as a material substance, but as a wave pattern in the universal quantum field of relations. Since that grid-like pattern is not a material substance, but a set of inter-relations, it can transform from one thing into another (E = MC^2). Energy is a causal relation that produces form-change in matter*3. :wink:


*1. "The mind is what the brain does"is a popular phrase summarizing the functionalist view in philosophy and neuroscience, meaning mental experiences (thoughts, feelings, consciousness) are the activities and functions performed by the physical brain, much like pumping blood is what the heart does. It emphasizes that the mind isn't a separate entity but emerges from complex neural processes, where brain injuries can alter mental states, linking them inextricably.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+is+function+of+brain

*2. The Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness : So I'm guessing that the non-sentient precursor of Mental Processes (e.g. linguistic) was more likely the non-spatial, massless stuff of Causation : Energy E in all its forms. Note that E = M C² has no symbol for matter. Even Mass M is only a mathematical measurement of resistance to Force, and C is a cosmological constant, not a measurement of a material object. Therefore, I can agree with both sides of the Matter-Mind argument, but with a twist : massless, spaceless Energy is capable of transforming into both Matter and Mind. But Consciousness is not a "separate, non-physical entity", it's an active meta-physical brain Process⁷, with no mass or inertia.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Energy as a pattern refers to the observable, often fractal or dynamic, arrangements and flows of energy in nature, technology, and psychology, such as toroidal flows in atoms/galaxies, branching systems in biology, cycles in human productivity, and predictable forms in code, all revealing underlying structures and processes that govern how energy organizes and moves. Recognizing these patterns helps us understand systems, from cellular function to climate dynamics and personal well-being, showing that energy isn't just a quantity but a fundamental organizer of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+as+pattern

When I said that Mind is what the Brain does, thinking & feeling, I was taking a Functionalist stance instead of a Substance position on the Hard Problem. — Gnomon

Strangely enough, many physicalists would actually say that you agree with them. If the mind is merely "what the brain does" it is ontologically not different from, say, digestion, which is a process that the digestive apparatus does.

The "inner aspect" notion could mean that Mind is like the Soul, an immaterial add-on (spiritual substance) to the material body ; or it could merely refer to a feature or function of the human body/brain. — Gnomon

In a sense, yes. I do believe that by looking to the body you can know, at least to some extent, what a person is 'feeling' (if not, even empathy would be impossible). However, the 'feeling', the qualitative experience itself is not accessible to a public perspective. It is private.

When you say "its form is incompatible with life", I read that its conceptual design is lacking some essential feature or factor (the right stuff) — Gnomon

If you think about it, a dead body differs form a living body in the structure rather in the 'stuff' it is made of. The same goes for energy. It is not the energy content that distinguishes a living organism than a dead one but the structure, the order. If you think about it, this is more or less the meaning of 'form' or 'formal cause' of Aristotle. Also, interestingly, the 'physical constituents' seems to have the potency to be 'organized' in such a way to 'constitute' a living body. Again, Aristotle IMO was right in thinking that 'matter' is potency ('material cause').

Another analogy is a cake. Unless the ingredients are organized in a certain way, there is no cake even if the 'unorganized mass' of ingredients has the same material components of the cake itself. The ingredients are the 'material cause', which has the potency to constitute a cake. However, the cake appears only when the ingredients are organized in a certain way.

I prefer to combine causal Energy and meaningful Information into a vital force (EnFormAction)*2, that evolved from a primordial burst of Energy (Big Bang) into the living & thinking features of our current reality. — Gnomon

I don't think that 'vital force' can be thought to be a 'physical quantity'. As I said, rather than a 'force' or a 'substance' it is more useful to think about an 'order', a 'structure'.

Our modern understanding of Energy is not as a material substance, but as a wave pattern in the universal quantum field of relations. — Gnomon

I disagree. Energy is merely a physical quantity that is conserved under certain conditions, is transferred in some ways under determined conditions and so on. I wouldn't really read into it too much, just like I wouldn't read into too much in 'momentum', 'angular momentum' and so on.
What really matters, in any case, isn't 'energy' but the fact that 'energy' is 'transferred' and 'stored' in certain ways.

:up: :up:

Strangely enough, many physicalists would actually say that you agree with them. If the mind is merely "what the brain does" it is ontologically not different from, say, digestion, which is a process that the digestive apparatus does. — boundless

Yes. Physicalists are aware that material bodies have immaterial functions (processes), such as Life & Mind. But they view the real Matter as fundamental, not the ideal Mind. Idealists, on the other hand, would also agree that objective physical bodies have subjective functions that cannot be seen or touched, but only inferred rationally. Yet they differ in their understanding of which is essential : spiritual Mind or physical Matter. My Reality includes both Subjective and Objective elements.

Therefore, my holistic BothAnd*1 interpretation avoids the contentious reductive Either/Or debate, by adopting a moderate inclusive position like Aristotle's pragmatic alternative to Plato's "spiritual" Idealism. Ari's HyloMorph hybrid includes both Physical and Mental aspects, without making a god-like assertion of which is more elementary. My 21st century version of HyloMorph is EnFormAction. Instead of Plato's pure heavenly Form, it suggests that, like Energy, EFA swings both ways : Causation & Constitution, Mind & Matter, Structure & Substance, Process & Purpose, E = MC^2. ☯︎

However, the 'feeling', the qualitative experience itself is not accessible to a public perspective. It is private. — boundless

Again, the debate between Physicalists and Mentalists hinges on which is more important : public empirical Matter or private theoretical Mind. Since I don't know the Mind of God, I simply assume that both Body and Mind are important to human philosophers : No body, no mind ; no mind, no philosophy. :wink:

If you think about it, a dead body differs form a living body in the structure rather in the 'stuff' it is made of. — boundless

Yes. A structural engineer deals with Ideal structure in the form of relationship diagrams, but a builder has to haul around Real structure (e.g. steel beams). But both are necessary to create a building on an empty site : the mental plan and the material building ; the abstract design and the concrete implementation. BothAnd. :grin:

I don't think that 'vital force' can be thought to be a 'physical quantity'. As I said, rather than a 'force' or a 'substance' it is more useful to think about an 'order', a 'structure'. — boundless

Empirical Energy is defined in terms of an abstract physical quantity, even though a Volt cannot be seen or touched, but inferred in qualitative terms : an ability, capability, potential, etc. Likewise, a Vital Force can only be known in its effects.

For example, to convert a dead lump of matter into a dynamic animated structure of flesh & bone. Remember the Miller-Urey attempt to create life by zapping inert chemicals with electricity. Or picture Frankenstein attempting to animate a corpse with lightning, then exclaiming "it's alive!". Both mistook physical quantitative electrical Energy as a metaphysical qualitative Vital Force. :cool:


*1. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

:eyes: Your usual woo-woo gibberish without a shred of conceptual clarity or philosophical relevance (i.e. bad physics + poor reasoning (vs strawmen ...) —> pseudo-metaphysics (re: New Age wankery ~ "enformationism" dogma)).