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)).

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".

Personally, I see our debate as one of the various consequences of an IMO questionable choice among historical scientists, i.e. having called the physical quantity 'energy' with that name. Its etymology, its use before the advent of science as well as the earliest scientific conceptions of it unfortunately have suggested that 'energy' has an intrinsic 'potentiality' to act or even is itself an 'entity' or at least of 'kind of staff' that constitutes physical systems. However, when one sees how the concept is defined in physics, it is evident for me that it is merely a property of a system ('realist' view of energy) - or, rather, even an useful way to 'quantify' such a property ('anti-realist' view of energy). When one sees this, it is not possible to think that 'energy' can have a structure, an order and so on. Physical systems might have such an order, but energy itself doesn't.

To make another example. A thermal machine clearly can be described as a physical system that exchanges energy in the form of work and heat. However, what really defines the thermal machine as such isn't the mere transfer of energy. Rather, it is the way it transfers energy. So, really, it is the structure, which determines how the energy is transferred, that we might say is the 'defining characteristic' of a machine (its 'formal cause' we might say). Energy even doesn't 'constitute' the machine. Even if we understand energy as a 'real' property of a physical system (rather than an useful 'way to describe' it), we can't say that energy is 'the stuff' that constitutes the machine (or any other physical system).

To be honest, I'm not even sure that the 'stuff' (what, again using Aristotelian metaphysics, we might call 'material cause') can be identified with any physical quantity. So 'energy', like 'mass', 'momentum' and so on can't really be either the 'material cause' nor the 'formal cause' of anything.

However, when one sees how the concept is defined in physics, it is evident for me that it is merely a property of a system ('realist' view of energy) - or, rather, even an useful way to 'quantify' such a property ('anti-realist' view of energy). When one sees this, it is not possible to think that 'energy' can have a structure, an order and so on. Physical systems might have such an order, but energy itself doesn't — boundless

Do I need to remind you that this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Seminar? Philosophy deals with Meaning & Metaphor, while Physics is supposed to stick to Empirical Facts and Mathematical Measurements. I think you may be confusing the semantic-vs-structure*1 and physical-vs-metaphysical*2 distinctions between scientific and philosophical language regarding "Energy" and "Structure". Do you think Philosophy is "anti-realist" because it deals in Ideas? Do you think physical language is more appropriate than philosophical terminology for discussions on a philosophy forum?

Ironically, most energy-related terms used by Physicists were adopted from historical philosophical notions. For example, what is a Property*3? Is it something you can see or touch? How is an objective physical Property different from a subjective metaphysical Qualia*4? Is a Property an observation or an inference? Are you aware that "Structure" is an abstract idea to an engineer, but a concrete thing to a builder?

Because ordinary human languages are inherently Materialistic & Objective, and philosophical language tends to be Idealistic & Subjective, I always try to clarify my terminology. When I use the term "Energy" I'm referring to its scientific & physical context. And when I talk about "Causation" or "Change", the intended context is philosophical & metaphysical, even though they are basically different words for the same thing. Some people imagine Energy as-if it's a material substance with a physical structure. But philosophically, Causation is an insubstantial inference from reasoning --- post hoc, ergo propter hoc --- not a sensory observation.

Do you think my philosophical concept of Causation, EnFormAction, is "anti-realist" or absurd? If so, that may be due to my use of Quantum instead of Classical physics concepts. Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman, not a fan of philosophy, made a strange observation of his professional field : QED (causation on the sub-atomic scale). He wrote, "from the point of view of common sense, quantum electrodynamics describes an absurd theory. . . . . I hope you will be able to accept Nature for what it is : absurd."*5 "Absurd" meaning : not what you expect, based on common sense.

When Feynman says that "light does not move", he's making a philosophical distinction between what light appears to do when measured classically --- follow a linear path from A to Z at lightspeed--- and what it actually does quantumly --- explore all possible paths simultaneously. Scientifically, that distinction makes no difference to our measurements. But philosophically, it forces us to distinguish between the superficial appearances of classical physics, and the functional foundations of reality. To common-sense thinkers, that may sound anti-realistic, but in the context of 21st century physics and philosophy, it is as Feyman said "in perfect agreement with the experimental data". :smile:


*1. Semantic focuses on meaning, while structure deals with arrangement, but they are deeply intertwined
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=semantic+vs+structure

*2. Science studies energy as a measurable, quantifiable physical property (like kinetic, potential, thermal) using experiments and math (physics); philosophy explores energy's fundamental nature, meaning, origins, and implications for reality, consciousness, ethics (e.g., "everything is energy," "philosophy of energy") through conceptual analysis, logic, and thought experiments, with philosophy laying groundwork for science but science focusing on how (mechanisms) and philosophy on what and why (existence, value).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22energy%22+science+vs+philosophy

*3. Properties are objective, measurable features (like a tomato's wavelength of light), while qualia are the subjective, felt qualities of experience (like the redness you see), representing the "what it's like" aspect of consciousness, often considered non-physical or intrinsic to our perception, and are central to debates about mind-body relationship and consciousness. The distinction contrasts external, physical attributes with internal, phenomenal experiences that can't be fully captured by objective description
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=property+vs+qualia

*4. In Aristotelian philosophy, the distinction between physical and metaphysical properties relates to how objects are studied and defined : physical properties are tied to matter, change, and the natural world, while metaphysical properties, particularly the form or essence, are related to a thing's fundamental "being" and are the subject of "first philosophy".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physical+vs+metaphysicalproperty

*5. Absurd Physics : https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=feynman+from+the+point+of+view+of+common+sense%2C+quantum+electrodynamics+describes+an+absurd+theory.

Do I need to remind you that this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Seminar? — Gnomon

No, you don't. But, again, a vital part of philosophy of physics is, in fact, clarify the meaning of the concepts that are used in physics.

As I said various times, I am not, in fact, making a critique of your metaphysical view from a purely meyaphysical standpoint. Rather, what I am trying to say is that it is not correct, in my opinion, to use out of their proper context terms that have a defined meaning in a given particular context. By doing this, there is a problem of (at least possible) equivocation that it is needed to be addressed.

As an example to be fair, I also believe that when even some scientists say that, for instance, the "68% of the constituents of our universe is unknown" because "dark energy is the 68% of the total energy of the observable universe" I believe that they are misusing language. Indeed, 'energy' can't be said to be a 'constituent' of anything. At best, you can say that, for instance, the 'rest energy' (which can arguably identified with its 'mass' via the famous mass-energy equivalence) of a muon is more than the 'rest energy' of an electron (both of which are to our knowledge elementary particles without 'parts'). However, it is can't be said that the muon has 'more stuff' of the neutrino. Hence, you can't say that 'most stuff' of the observable universe isn't unknown because it is 'dark energy'. You can say that most energy is in some unknown physical component of the observale universe but it isn't the same as saying that "most constituents are unknown".
Again, kinetic energy increases with the increase of velocity. Since this means that an object acquires energy with increasing its velocity this means that energy can't be 'stuff'. Further, the value of kinetic energy also clearly depends on the reference frame. So, 'the energy contained in a system' is, in fact, dependent of the reference frame. So, again, this suggests that energy can't be an intrinsic property of a system.

However, 'properties' like, say, 'being a thermal machine' are something different. In this case you aren't considering the 'energy content' but the way the system behaves. It says something of its structure, its order and, therefore, if anything, it is how a system transfers and stores energy that gives you information about the 'nature' of a physical system.

Anyway, I believe that we are talking past of each other now. So, I'll give you the last word if you wish.

In any case, I truly enjoyed the chat. Thanks for the exchange.

Do I need to remind you that this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Seminar?
— Gnomon

No, you don't. But, again, a vital part of philosophy of physics is, in fact, clarify the meaning of the concepts that are used in physics.

As I said various times, I am not, in fact, making a critique of your metaphysical view from a purely meyaphysical standpoint. Rather, what I am trying to say is that it is not correct, in my opinion, to use out of their proper context terms that have a defined meaning in a given particular context. By doing this, there is a problem of (at least possible) equivocation that it is needed to be addressed. — boundless

:up: :up:

As I said various times, I am not, in fact, making a critique of your metaphysical view from a purely meyaphysical standpoint. Rather, what I am trying to say is that it is not correct, in my opinion, to use out of their proper context terms that have a defined meaning in a given particular context. By doing this, there is a problem of (at least possible) equivocation that it is needed to be addressed. — boundless

So, you think a Philosophy Forum is not a "proper context" for discussing Scientific terms? Or, to put it differently, that Science and Philosophy are, in S.J. Gould's phrasing, Non-overlapping Magisteria*1? If this was a Physics forum I would agree. But, on TPF, I disagree. Science (natural philosophy) and Philosophy (metaphysical science) are a continuum. And I could give you a long list of professional scientists, such as Einstein, who felt free to cross the invisible, and debatable, line between Empirical Factual science and Theoretical Speculative philosophy.

In my Enformationism thesis, the inspiration came from cutting edge Quantum & Information science, but I made no claim to be doing Science per se. Instead, I was deriving metaphysical implications from physical observations. The thesis has a glossary*2, where I take a scientific term, and re-define it for application to a new context. If I wanted to "equivocate"*3 or "prevaricate", I wouldn't go to the trouble to provide both the Scientific and Philosophical meanings side-by-side. Like many philosophers before me, I present an "unconventional worldview", but you are free to compare it with the generally accepted version, to see if the new perspective has any metaphysical validity. Notice, that I don't quote religious authorities, but scientific professionals, who are willing to cross the taboo line between Physics and Metaphysics.

Therefore, I would prefer that you "make a critique of my metaphysical view from a purely metaphysical standpoint". When you criticize my posts on The Philosophical Forum from a physical standpoint, you are completely missing the point. :smile:

PS___ The OP was not a statement of my beliefs, but an invitation to discuss an unconventional philosophical/religious interpretation of human Consciousness, that I find hard to believe. I'm not defending that worldview, but trying to see if I should adapt my Information-based view to align with the notion of Noetics.

Anyway, I believe that we are talking past of each other now. So, I'll give you the last word if you wish.
In any case, I truly enjoyed the chat. Thanks for the exchange. — boundless

I too, have enjoyed the give-&-take dialog. It exercises my brain. Another respondent on this thread, may agree with your general opinion, but his inarticuate arguments tend to be boring repetitions of "Boo-Hiss, Poo-Poo, Woo-Woo nonsense". For which there is no philosophical substance to sustain a dialog. So, I appreciate your willingness to actually engage in discourse. :cool:

PPS___ Your screenname, Boundless, sounded like you would be open-minded toward novel concepts that go beyond outdated conventional orthodoxy. As I said, I find the Philosophy of Materialism/Physicalism to be incompatible with 21st century Natural Science.


*1. The idea of science and philosophy being non-overlapping usually refers to Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), which separates science (the what and how of the empirical world) from religion (ultimate meaning and moral value), but this concept is debated, as philosophy fundamentally underpins science by examining its assumptions, methods, and concepts (like time, knowledge, and ethics), creating significant overlaps rather than distinct realms, especially in areas like the philosophy of science and ethics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+philosophy+non-overlapping

*2. Glossary Introduction :
The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

*3. Equivocation : the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. — Gnomon

Discussion is one thing, but re-definition in support of an argument is another. 'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Clearly, idealism (i.e. 'mind-dependency') is an anthropocentric fallacy and contrary to the Copernican Principle (as well as Ockham's Razor); at best, it's folk philosophy. Consider the following concise, facts-constrained, naturalistic (i.e. nonmind-dependency') speculation ...

PS___ The OP was not a statement of my beliefs, but an invitation to discuss an unconventional philosophical/religious interpretation of human Consciousness, that I find hard to believe. I'm not defending that worldview, but trying to see if I should adapt my Information-based view to align with the notion of Noetics. — Gnomon

Quantum Field Theory works as the basis for all the temporaries that form, from the simplest on up to the ultra complex, each intermediate level taking on a life of its own, and so human consciousness, too, must get answered through processes that are compatible with this theory.

Clearly, idealism (i.e. 'mind-dependency') is an anthropocentric fallacy and contrary to the Copernican Principle — 180 Proof

But you never demonstrate a grasp of the implications of philosophical idealism. In the various OPs and essays where I present it, idealism is closely linked to what is called in modern philosophy constructivism: the understanding that the brain synthesises sensory input and conceptual structures to generate what we ordinarily take to be a fully external world. That is not anthropocentrism, nor does it imply that the universe depends on human minds in order to exist. It is an acknowledgment of the nature of knowledge, and, more to the point, the reality of being.

I started listening to the video, and the very first sentence already gives the game away: “It seems that reality somehow waits for awareness before deciding what it is.”

“Waiting” is an intentional predicate. It presupposes an agent that entertains a state of anticipation or suspension. But no serious account of observation — in either physics or philosophy — is committed to anything like that. Introducing this language at the outset inserts a straw man into the presentation. The follow-up claim that “physics dismantles this idea” continues the same. Physics does nothing of the kind; 'dismantling is the aim of a presentation about physics, which in turn always requires interpretation. Phrases like “the universe constantly measures itself” are further examples of a metaphor doing illicit conceptual work.

There is also equivocation in the use of the word 'observer'. Sometimes it denotes a physical interaction system (detectors, environments, particles); sometimes it implicitly refers to a conscious subject. Showing that decoherence does not require a conscious observer in the first sense does nothing to address the second sense. The two uses of the term operate at different explanatory levels.

Finally, look closely at the channel itself: joined Nov 2025, a stream of 6-minute videos comprising computer-generated images with AI voiceovers, driven by a creator with a clear agenda. Someone selected the prompts, framed the claims, and published the material. In other words, there is very definitely an observer — namely the author of those materials. Without him (or her), they wouldn’t exist. :-)

“Waiting” is an intentional predicate. It presupposes an agent that entertains a state of anticipation or suspension. But no serious account of observation — in either physics or philosophy — is committed to anything like that. Introducing this language at the outset inserts a straw man into the presentation. The follow-up claim that “physics dismantles this idea” continues the same. Physics does nothing of the kind; 'dismantling is the aim of a presentation about physics, which in turn always requires interpretation. Phrases like “the universe constantly measures itself” are further examples of a metaphor doing illicit conceptual work — Wayfarer

The limits of my language are the limits of my
world. (The only Friedrich Nietzsche maxim that ever talked sense, imo)

"Illicit conceptual work". Being kind, the fact
suggests the author has a project and not on
primary causes an ignoramus.

I would got further that it is more the role of
semantics and linguistics which the field of
physics utilizes in order to verbalise its
novel relations about material constants in
the universe to further the science into the
practical efforts of mechanical engineering.

Knowing precedent and prior experimentation
is fairly not the same as epistemology and
ontology found in philosophical inquiry.

Unless it is of benefit to the individual to
approach a subject, or any subject matter
from both a historicism and consistent
existential perspective whilst feeding intellectual
and aesthetic needs according to personal growth
and the passage of a soul in time.

definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. — Gnomon
Discussion is one thing, but re-definition in support of an argument is another. 'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

What "re-defined facts" are you referring to?

Boundless is quibbling about the equation of Energy and Information*1, which is not my redefinition, but that of a scholar & scientist : Lienhard Pagel, among others. He's also concerned about my use of the philosophical term Causation as equivalent to the physical term Energy. Although, he doesn't make clear what his objection is, I suspect that he thinks I'm using the concept of Energy as a code word for Spiritual Force. But I've never said or implied such a thing.

Since this thread is discussing Cosmic Consciousness, among other topics, do you think making a philosophical argument based, in part, on Causation and Information should stick to the standard scientific & materialistic definitions of those terms? In my posts, I'm careful to define what I mean by unfamiliar usages, and provide links to technical articles for more information on the terms & topics. So, I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Besides, when the topic is Consciousness, what are the hard "facts"?

In Federico Faggin's new book on Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature, the first half of the book mostly uses conventional Quantum Physics & Computer terminology. But in the second half, he coins several novel terms, such as Consciousness Units, and adapts archaic terms, Seity, that are "tailored to the subject matter", and are defined in the glossary. He also uses the term Live Information, which was new to me. but fits my thesis, because "it makes no sharp distinction between energy, matter, and information". Do you think he is "re-defining" terms "in support of an argument"? Even if he is, is that an illicit tactic in philosophy? :smile:



*1. 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