How much time do you have? The full answer is in the Enformationism Thesis, if you have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? — praxis
No. We can distinguish between invisible Matter (quarks) & invisible MInd Stuff (ideas), because they come in meaningfully different Forms. And "spirits" were simply an ancient term for causal forces and energy. What used to be called Spirits, Souls, Chi, or Prana, are simply different forms of Information. The same information that constitutes Matter and Mind, computer programs and human feelings. Isn't that weird? :joke: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? — praxis
What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
— praxis
I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". — Gnomon
Apparently, you missed the point of Enformationism. For the purposes of my thesis, Information is equivalent to Spinoza's "Single Substance". Generic (creative) EnFormAction is the whole, of which every thing in the world is a part. Spinoza called his universal substance "God", but he was not referring to the Yahweh or Jehovah of the Bible. Instead, his Aristotelian "substance" was more like what we now call "Nature", or metaphorically "Mother Nature". So, it definitely makes a meaningful difference if you are referring to "A" or "B" or to "the alphabet". A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. Get it?Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis
As usual, 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.That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest
Are your ideas so far out of the mainstream that they are incomprehensible to those who "don't yet know the first thing about" philosophy? Or are they so radical that they offend those who think they know a lot about philosophy? Or are they so abstruse that they don't appeal to those who don't care anything about philosophy? — Gnomon
So tell me : how does your book relate to my personal philosophical interests? In general terms, what is "the thing" you were looking for but never found? — Gnomon
Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
— praxis
A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. — Gnomon
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. — Pfhorrest
"You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result". — praxisAgain, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B? — praxis
Yes. Information is both metaphysical mind-stuff, and physical material stuff. Information is the "Single Substance" of Spinoza's worldview. That's the novel notion that I call Enformationism. If you don't believe me, I have lots of scientific documentation in my boring "weird" thesis. :nerd:He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." — praxis
No. All things and ideas about things are components of (or consist of) Information : the Single Substance of the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) world. :nerd:It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning? — praxis
Because "X" is the same in both equations. Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work? — praxis
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. — Gnomon
The quoted definition of "Information" is based on my personal worldview of Enformationism, not on any conventional scientific paradigm. But here's another opinion from a different perspective.I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons. — I like sushi
If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?
— praxis
Because "X" is the same in both equations. — Gnomon
Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.
Obviously, you have missed the point of my thesis, which is to go beyond Shannon's limited theory of Information toward a general theory (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation was a special case of Einstein's general theory of relativity.). It may sound New Agey to you, but it's not. Merely unfamiliar, and strange --- like Quantum Theory. Are Virtual Particles pseudoscience, just because you can't measure them?Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. — I like sushi
I favor Idealism for the same reason Plato did : it makes sense of human Consciousness. I favor Realism, for the same reason Aristotle did : It makes pragmatic Science possible. I favor Holism for the same reason Jan Smuts did : it gives us an elevated perspective on the world. If you prefer Parts to Wholes, that's OK. Just keep looking at the shiny stars, and ignore the mind-boggling Cosmos. :joke:Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic. — praxis
I just read an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine*, that reminded me of your incredulous attitude toward my "weird" ideas. The title is The Nobel Disease : Why Intelligent Scientists Go Weird. The article describes "the tendency of many Nobel winners to embrace scientifically questionable ideas". It goes on to note, "because merely entertaining the possibility of an unsupported claim, such as the existence of extrasensory perception, does not indicate a critical thinking lapse, we focus on Nobelists who clung to one or more weird idea with considerable conviction". One of those weird ideas may well be the next Relativity or Quantum theory.I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon
Indeed. — praxis
I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas. — Gnomon
If you would do more than skim the thesis, you'd discover that I do "reference existing work" in sidebars, end notes, and bibliographies. The only "new thing" I take credit for is the concept of Enformationism as an update for the outdated paradigms of "Spiritualism" and "Materialism".The only thing that seems kind of sketchy to me about your approach is the neologisms and kind of... style, and terminology... that makes it seem like this is some "crazy" new thing you came up with all by yourself -- and maybe you did a lot of it, which is fine and plausible, but it could put off a lot of people who might just dismiss this as some loony ramblings. It kind of sucks to say but I imagine if you tried to use fewer neologisms and more standard terminology, reference existing work in the same vein wherever possible, explain the things that have already been explored, and then note your own variations or additions on top of that, I think it would "sell" (figuratively speaking) a lot better. — Pfhorrest
Yes. My Enformationism theory may be too technical & cutting-edge for the average reader --- limited by holding an outdated scientific paradigm (e.g Classical vs Quantum Physics). The thesis repeatedly states that it is not to be "equated" with Shannon theory, but is a different kind of theory, with a different application : fuzzy-logic people instead of digital-logic machines.↪Gnomon
I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours. — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.