I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain.

(...but I’m trying anyway). — Pfhorrest

Not trying hard enough. Maybe you’re just not ready yet and find it easier to swallow if it’s ‘the world’ that’s against you instead of yourself.

We’re all human though. I do the same often enough and still hoodwink myself for days/weeks/months at a time. Slowly less and less, it is what it is, we are what we are, but we can instill ourselves a break our own destructive patterns if we manage to stop being consumed by hidden fears for a few brief instances (and they’re always brief or insanity ensues).

GL and keep trying to try, to try trying, to try :D

1. To sense.
Our sense units are advanced and can produce lot's of data that may attribute to a lot of good science, from any species, who can collect this data.

2. To act.
Unlike seagulls, humans are more apt to play a central role. In movies, per se, a seagull is less of a Jame's Bond.

3. For science.
The universe is rought with potential, to improve all simulations, to improve planets, etc

it seems to be an event that was more about the genesis than the end product.

The "geniser', did understand the result, but not all it's effect.

4. For art.
Producing art of a high quality can be profitable to any species with the capacity to wonder at it.

If, in life, there are species, who can exploit all universe data (possibly from a multiverse), art is desirable. Imagine the echoes of all the best music.

5. To be punished.
Planet hells are high quality struggles. It is only recently I discovered that there is enough consciousness in existence to support conscio-reincarnation in the universe.

6. To be rewarded.
Planet heavens are often high quality and full of pleasure.

John D. Collier's website

Dr. Collier mentions "enformation" in the first link I provided to you in the other thread:


I would like to add John D. Collier's Information, Causation, and Computation and Causation is the Transfer of Information

I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted. — praxis

It's amazing that you seem satisfied with this circular non-answer to my question.

Specifically, which philosophical views are well established? If you can't answer it, then retract your faulty statement, or are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum?

As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote.

are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum — Harry Hindu

I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human?

I recognise that both you and Gnomon have relatively complete philosophical systems mapped out, which you continue to reference during discussions. I’ve started down that rabbit hole a few times, and while I was excited to read elements of my own philosophy reflected back to me, I eventually got lost in a sea of complex scientific concepts or neologisms. I wonder if either of you have considered condensing your system into something that fits onto a t-shirt? — Possibility

I'm aware that philosophy is not an emotion-driven game, but hard rational work. Hence it will never be as popular as shoot-em-up video games. But, in writing the Enformationism thesis, I was driven by the philosopher's emotion : Love of Wisdom. It was an attempt to put my random thoughts into an organized form, so I could objectively see what I was subjectively thinking. That probing process continues in my blog, and in this forum. It was never about popularity, or ego-boosting, or fantasy fun. But, for a target audience of one, it has been very successful.

I have played with the notion of summarizing the thesis of Enformationism in a T-shirt logo. But I'm not there yet. Here's a crude first pass at a concise equation of "Information" :

E = MC^∞.
Where "E" is EnFormAction ; "M" is the Macrocosm ; and "C" is Constant Creativity ; and the exponent is Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity).

Unfortunately, few six year olds would find that informative, or fun. So, back to the old drawing board. :nerd:



EnFormAction :

En- __ is the power (Energy) to cause something to change state.

-Form- __ is the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.

-Action __ the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.

So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.

Plato’s Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.

PS__another T-shirt epigram : "Mother Nature Begets Herself".

I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain. — Pfhorrest

I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine : Escaping The Academic Coal Mine. The author says, "I am currently crafting an article that tinkers with aspects of John Rawls" political theory that are so esoteric that they're probably of no interest to anyone not trapped inside the same isolated bubble. So why do it?" He also notes that "82% of academic articles in the humanities are not cited. Not once." Then he wonders, "If research is not being read beyond a nerdy few, is it worth doing, at least in a professional context? Shouldn't it rather be a hobby?"

I'm long retired, and don't depend on my philosophical scrivenings for income or professional advancement. So for me, my tinkering with cosmological ideas is just a hobby, like collecting stamps. Wanna see my cosmic worldview stamp collection? :nerd:

↪Gnomon
What's weird about a form of idealism? — praxis

What's uncanny about Enformationism is that it reconciles Idealism with Realism and Spiritualism with Materialism. It's based on the cutting-edge scientific concept that immaterial Information --- not atoms, not water, not fire --- is the fundamental "stuff" of the world. Everything, from Matter to Mind, is a form of Information, including the Energy & Selection Algorithms that propel evolution. You could think of Enformationism as a 21st century atomic hypothesis, in which the "particles" are not things, but ideas or relationships. :nerd:

Is Information Fundamental ? : Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information—describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Are you familiar with Alfred North Whitehead? I think you would like him a lot.

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? We have to call them something. For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information?

↪Gnomon
Are you familiar with Alfred North Whitehead? I think you would like him a lot. — Pfhorrest

Yes. His general worldview is similar to mine, except for the special integrating role for information. But I found his book, Process and Reality, difficult to follow because of his frequent neologisms and special definitions for ordinary words. That's why I have an extensive Glossary of relevant terminology, and continue to clarify controversial issues in my blog. It's a "fun" hobby for an introvert. :smile:

As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote. — praxis

The problem here is that you're not reading what I wrote.

I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human? — praxis

Sure, but being human also entails using reason, and it's seems to me that you're all emotion and no reason, because your reply was unreasonable, hence my request to clarify, and your refusal to do so.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis

It depends if it's a name or a property. If A and B are two names for one thing, it makes no difference. If A and B are two properties (or sets of properties) of the same thing, it makes a difference.

If A and B are two properties (or sets of properties) of the same thing, it makes a difference. — bert1

Yes, take a computer for example, we could say that one property is hardware and another is software.

There’s another way that makes a difference that involves purpose. For example, a hammer can be both a hammer and a paperweight.

you're all emotion and no reason — Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?

And you believe this is a reasonable claim? — praxis

Absolutely. The reason being your inability to answer a direct question.

I asked you what philosophical view is well established. I'll go easy on you and ask for only one example. Give me the name of the philosophical view and the name of the original proponent so we can continue. And then I would like to know if that philosophical view took into account all the prior "well established" views when it was originally proposed. For instance, did Aristotle or Wittgenstein take into account any prior "well established" views when they proposed their own? What about Darwin or Newton? Would Aristotle and Wittgenstein make the same claims if they had access to all the well established scientific views that we have now?

Now, the theory of evolution by natural selection is a well established view, but that is a scientific view, not a philosophical one. How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable?

this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview. — Gnomon

You're partly to blame for making off-topic assertions.

you're all emotion and no reason
— Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?
— praxis

Absolutely. — Harry Hindu

And then you proceed as though I have the capacity for reason. You, Sir, are a lier.

How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable? — Harry Hindu

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result.

As I mentioned earlier in the topic, I read a portion of Gnomon's website that caught my interest. It was about meditation and related subjects. Granted it may touch on philosophical issues, however, the bulk of it is well within the falsifiable realm.

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result. — praxis

Oh, no. I expected the same result. My post wasnt for you, but for reasonable readers to see how unreasonable you are being.

So I’ve been promoted from reasonless to unreasonable. Cool :cool:

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information). — praxis

It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly.

I like that general approach at least. As I see it matter reduces to information which is in one fuzzy kind of way “mind-like”, “mental” stuff, “ideas” in a sense; but actual minds in the ordinary sense are made of that matter, which is not necessarily “in” any particular mind. It’s all a wonky way of talking about reality being made of stuff that is mind-accessible, and actual minds being made of that stuff then being able to access is unremarkable.

If everything is information then all programs are data and all data can be executed as a program (even if it won’t do anything but halt immediately) and there’s no mysterious duality to work around.

Claude Shannon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

So I found this place. And I guess it's better than other places where nobody wanted to talk philosophy at all. But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

But I'm still curious. Why are you here?

I am here for a bit of intellectual stimulation where there is a high standard of thought. To achieve this in the area where I live would not be easy and would mean seeking out the right kind of people and travel and therefore logistics and time, would be required.

Rather like you say, my particular area of interest does not fall into a philosophical category, as academic philosophy describes them. I refer to mysticism, whenever I bring up the subject I either get a blank, I am put into some sort of weirdo category, or if someone does engage they tend to give up, or lose interest, once I say something like, you have to look beyond your intellect. It just doesn't seem to compute. There are one or two folk on here who do understand to a degree what I am thinking, but even then it is virtually impossible to engage. This is probably why I find myself in the politics section at the moment, because it is possible to engage.

[W]hy are we, the readers of this forum, here, on this forum? — Pfhorrest

Apparently, foolosophers like us need a place - an agora - to conceptually chase (spin) our promiscuously speculative tails (tales).

Or more generally, what is it that constitutes your interest in philosophy, such that you seek out a forum on the topic?

My interest: I wonder can - wander until - these dialectics show us the way out of the fly-bottle.

So, basically, to wax lyrical? :D

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

↪180 Proof So, basically, to wax lyrical? :D — I like sushi

Or else wane literal. :zip:

That’s puntastic!

'Why' is a query that assesses everything briefly, having an empty/basic(blurry) thought bubble, in the place of a purer assessment that is entirely logical(not an 'empty/basic thought bubble but a complex dream).

'Why am I here?' - life, briefly - and the leading answer on this board 'information'/'enformation'. It seems wrong to answer why with that, that, is more suited for a full assesment, such as assesment of all matter and energy phenomena, not - everything - briefly.

I stand by my former post in this thread.

It seems more a question about mental agility than it is pure mental; not 'what the mind is' but 'why mind exists?' - is it enformation or is that more suited for what?

'Why' questions require more creative and less logical answers; you're not to answer this query like you'd define a word or sum up a formula...

You're going to have a whack at it.

Enformation counts to me as 'continue' - 'you're doing nothing wrong'. Whereas {sensing, acting, science, art, heaven and hell}(my previous post) seems more of an sensible answer impartial as this may be.

Imagine an empty thought bubble, but if you're spermy you may enter it and truly analyse all of it. Like having a dream that you knew was coming - then it is full of what's that help minds to understand the former why. That transition from why to what is changing using the original bubble, not annotating it. So you go in, you annotate all the what - and then you take a look at the bubble again. You say "why are we here?", and you look at all the "1's you wrote next to all objects and subjects, and you say 1 is the answer. Is that right?

No because it's more of a 3 or 4, in a trinitarian or quadritarian way and not a 3 or 4 * 1 way. So, to conclude, why are we here?

Here today, gone tomorrow. :cry:

I got into philosophy as per one of my recent threads, due to an overabundance of some sort of self-sulking tendency. For some reason philosophy relishes in self-sulking according to my own imperative.