Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. — Gnomon

But do they? Or, do you really believe this? What I've been trying to tell you, is that the binary system is really a great restriction to meaning. It is a restriction because any meaning which cannot be expressed in binary therefore cannot be expressed. Consider all the instances where the law of excluded middle does not apply, how could the meaning here be expressed in binary?

Therefore, in order to be meaningful to non-computers, that general (one size fits all) language must be translated (inverted) back into a single human language with a narrowly-defined (specified) range of meanings for each word. — Gnomon

The problem is not translating binary to natural language, but translating natural language to binary. We have in natural language the law of non-contradiction which is very suitable for binary. But by this same principle, binary is much more restrictive, much more specific, than the natural languages which are more general. So natural language consists of generalities, ambiguities, which cannot be captured in the binary. These generalities allow the natural languages wider ranging applicability.

For example, suppose that to fit into binary, the meaning must match the digits, 0, and 1. Anything which does not fit precisely into the designated meaning of 0 or 1 just gets rounded off so that it does fit one or the other. You'd think that this is just making the language more precise. But ask yourself what happens to all that meaning which gets rounded off? It gets lost, simply discarded, as if it's meaning which is not meaningful. So, in weeding out, discarding, all that meaning which falls in between, as neither 0 nor 1 (which would violate the law of excluded middle if it were allowed to remain in between), we end up violating the law of non-contradiction by having meaning which is not meaningful, and therefore discarded as such.

Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. — Gnomon
But do they? Or, do you really believe this? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not just me. See the link to Universal Language in the previous post. I'm making a broad general statement, that you may be interpreting in a narrow sense. I'm merely repeating the opinions of serious scientists -- Wheeler, Tegmark, Fredkin, Lloyd, etc -- that the physical reality of our universe may be viewed as our sensory interpretation of abstract mathematical Information --- see Interface Reality below.

Of course, this is not a mainstream view, but I'm using it for personal philosophical purposes, not an academic technical thesis. These mathematical-minded scientists are implying that we are living in the Matrix, running a digital program. I don't take that metaphor too literally, but as a metaphor, it fits neatly into my Enformationism worldview. So, yes, I believe it --- provisionally. :joke:

Digital Physics : In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is describable by information. It is a form of digital ontology about the physical reality. According to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or a mathematical Isomorphism to such a device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

If that is your view, and belief, how do you account for all that meaning which is excluded as not meaningful, by that position, as I explained above? Do you believe that it is acceptable to exclude any meaning which cannot fit into the digital representation, as not meaningful? Isn't that contradictory?

Shannon's "information theory" does not deal with "information" at all, as we commonly use the word. If we do not recognize this, and the ambiguity which arises, between the common use, and the use within the theory, we might inadvertently equivocate and think that the theory deals with "information" as what is referred to when we commonly use the word to refer to what is inherent within a message. — Metaphysician Undercover

This ambiguity of the word information needs to be emphasized in trying to grasp what Shannon's theory says and what it does not say. Shannon was talking about transmission of data over a neutral but imperfect channel not what that data means to a sender or to a receiver.

Think of a semaphore that sends a signal between two mountain tops. The issue is how much of signal content is mislaid in theory over years of use.

In a more complicated case perhaps the channel or method of transmission is not neutral. In the verbal transmission of rumors some content is lost, embellished, and added as the content is passed from person to person. Here, content is not the letters, words, or sentences but a human intelligible meaning with both cognitive and emotional elements.

Philosophically, a mathematical model is an ultra-materialist quasi-concrete representation of the world. One's happiness with the model reflects one's philosophical world dispositions. Inseparably, precision of representation is accompanied by proportional loss of global understanding of the real world.

It describes how what is foundational, or basic to communication is uncertainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

This can be said about any experience - visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile. We use past experience, knowledge, and rules, to eliminate the uncertainty of what we experience.

Interpretting words and behaviors entails discovering the rules (beliefs) that the sender used to encode the message. Only by discovering the rule (belief) can you then decode the message.

Re: Noise

Noise is information that isn't being attended to, or not applicable to the present goal in working memory.

When listening to someone across a crowded and noisy room, you are focusing your attention on one particular voice. All the other voices are noise because your attention isn't focused on that information. But switch your attention to another voice and that voice becomes information. Its not that the noise wasn't information. It is. The difference arises from attending to bits of information vs. not attending to the bits of information. So, the distinction between noise and information is epistemological.

This ambiguity of the word information needs to be emphasized in trying to grasp what Shannon's theory says and what it does not say. Shannon was talking about transmission of data over a neutral but imperfect channel not what that data means to a sender or to a receiver. — magritte

Right, that's why I said what "information" refers to in information theory is something completely different from what "information" refers to in much common usage. So for example, if we distinguish between symbols and what the symbols represent (meaning), in information theory the symbols are called information, but in common usage information usually refers to what is represented by the symbols, the meaning.

In a more complicated case perhaps the channel or method of transmission is not neutral. In the verbal transmission of rumors some content is lost, embellished, and added as the content is passed from person to person. Here, content is not the letters, words, or sentences but a human intelligible meaning with both cognitive and emotional elements. — magritte

When we start to consider content now we need to be wary of a potentially similar distinction with respect to "content". In information theory, symbols are transmitted, and we could call this the content. But in speaking about natural language, the content is the meaning.

Now there is an issue of whether any content (meaning) is actually transmitted in natural language use. It may be the case that only symbols are transmitted between us, and all the content (meaning), is created in the minds which transmit and receive the symbols. If this is the case, then information in the common sense of the word, as meaning, is not transmitted in natural language use. This would imply that we need to look for some process other than language use, to understand how information (as meaning) is shared by human beings.

Harry Hindu is speaking of this as a matter of following rules, but I don't see any evidence of any such rules. And the idea of "rules" does not deliver us from the ambiguity. We generally understand "rules" to exist as an expression of symbols. But these rules would need to be interpreted for meaning. So we'd be stuck in a vicious circle here, of requiring rules to interpret rules.

Interpretting words and behaviors entails discovering the rules (beliefs) that the sender used to encode the message. Only by discovering the rule (belief) can you then decode the message. — Harry Hindu

I really do not believe that there are any such rules, just habits, so I think we're on a different page here Harry.

If that is your view, and belief, how do you account for all that meaning which is excluded as not meaningful, by that position, as I explained above? Do you believe that it is acceptable to exclude any meaning which cannot fit into the digital representation, as not meaningful? Isn't that contradictory? — Metaphysician Undercover

I assume that by "excluded", you are referring to "discarding, all that meaning which falls in between, as neither 0 nor 1". But that's not how I understand the digital compression process. Instead, it's similar to Quantum Superposition, in that all values between 0 and 1 are possible, but not actual, until the superposition is "collapsed" by a measurement. The original Intention is still in-there, but un-knowable until the meaning is "measured" by a mind that "resonates" with the intent. In other words, the receiver must already know something about the significance of the communication.

I'm not into all the technical details, but some Information theorists view the secret to compression as, not either/or, but as all-of-the-above. However, exactly what triggers the decompression is just as unclear as in Quantum Theory. It seems to have something to do with a Conscious Mind extracting Information as a Measurement of Meaning. That notion fits into my Enformationism thesis, even though I can't spell-out the exact mechanics of it. I simply liken it to a physical Phase Change, such as water to ice.

Besides there is no actual Meaning transmitted in a Shannon communication --- only abstract mathematical symbols, that can be used to define conventional relationships, which the receiving mind interprets as Meaning. Anything deeper than that vague summary is way over my pointy head. :cool:

Superposition of meaning : Shannon's theory of information was built on the assumption that the information carriers were classical systems. Its quantum counterpart, quantum Shannon theory, explores the new possibilities arising when the information carriers are quantum systems.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0903

Phase Transition : Phase transitions occur when the thermodynamic free energy of a system is non-analytic for some choice of thermodynamic variables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
Note : I interpret "non-analytic" to mean that nobody knows what the intermediate steps are, between before & after the change. It's like magic. :joke:

Meaning Communication :In the philosophy of language, metaphysics, and metasemantics, meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(philosophy)
Note : it takes two to tango : sender & receiver must have something in common -- they must be on the same wavelength.

Harry Hindu is speaking of this as a matter of following rules, but I don't see any evidence of any such rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps he is referring to the rules of Syntax, which are conventional, and the rules of Semantics, which are mostly intuitive. :smile:

Right, that's why I said what "information" refers to in information theory is something completely different from what "information" refers to in much common usage. So for example, if we distinguish between symbols and what the symbols represent (meaning), in information theory the symbols are called information, but in common usage information usually refers to what is represented by the symbols, the meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you call them symbols if they don't already represent something? Meaning is inherent in symbols. Effects are symbolic of their causes.

Harry Hindu is speaking of this as a matter of following rules, but I don't see any evidence of any such rules. And the idea of "rules" does not deliver us from the ambiguity. We generally understand "rules" to exist as an expression of symbols. But these rules would need to be interpreted for meaning. So we'd be stuck in a vicious circle here, of requiring rules to interpret rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe "rule" isn't the most appropriate term. Does natural selection "select rules" by which some organism interprets the information it receives via its senses? Is "selecting rules" an adequate phrase to refer to how certain characteristics are favored by natural selection for the organism to be more in tune with their environment? What is selected is better interpretations of sensory information. These ways of interpreting sensory information are what become instincts, or habits.

I really do not believe that there are any such rules, just habits, so I think we're on a different page here Harry. — Metaphysician Undercover

Habits are memorized rules, or rules that have been engrained in the genetic code thanks to natural selection.

I assume that by "excluded", you are referring to "discarding, all that meaning which falls in between, as neither 0 nor 1". But that's not how I understand the digital compression process. Instead, it's similar to Quantum Superposition, in that all values between 0 and 1 are possible, but not actual, until the superposition is "collapsed" by a measurement. The original Intention is still in-there, but un-knowable until the meaning is "measured" by a mind that "resonates" with the intent. In other words, the receiver must already know something about the significance of the communication. — Gnomon

The point remains the same, even if you express it in this way. All that meaning between 1 and 0 cannot be expressed in the digital system.

I'm not into all the technical details, but some Information theorists view the secret to compression as, not either/or, but as all-of-the-above. — Gnomon

Right, that's why all that meaning (information) ends up being contradictory and "un-knowable".

Besides there is no actual Meaning transmitted in a Shannon communication --- only abstract mathematical symbols, that can be used to define conventional relationships, which the receiving mind interprets as Meaning. — Gnomon

That's why the Shannon use of "information" is distinct from most common usage.

Perhaps he is referring to the rules of Syntax, which are conventional, and the rules of Semantics, which are mostly intuitive. — Gnomon

The point being that I don't see any evidence of rules of semantics, and the rules of syntax need to be interpreted.

How can you call them symbols if they don't already represent something? Meaning is inherent in symbols. — Harry Hindu

This is not my preferred terminology, to say that there is a "symbol" which does not represent anything. But that's what they do in examples of logic, they separate the symbols from all meaning, to demonstrate a procedure which uses symbols and the symbols used don't represent any thing. I agree that this is contradictory, and I don't really believe that these things ought to even be called symbols.

Maybe "rule" isn't the most appropriate term. Does natural selection "select rules" by which some organism interprets the information it receives via its senses? Is "selecting rules" an adequate phrase to refer to how certain characteristics are favored by natural selection for the organism to be more in tune with their environment? What is selected is better interpretations of sensory information. These ways of interpreting sensory information are what become instincts, or habits. — Harry Hindu

Right, I'd prefer to call these actions habits rather than instances of following rules.

Habits are memorized rules, or rules that have been engrained in the genetic code thanks to natural selection. — Harry Hindu

I see no reason to believe that habits are memorized rules. If an habitual action is dependent on certain nervous system activity, why would you characterize this nervous system activity as memorized rules. I think we need to reverse this outlook. Memorizing rules could form a particular type of habit, as we find in mathematics, but not all habits are instances of memorizing rules.

The point remains the same, even if you express it in this way. All that meaning between 1 and 0 cannot be expressed in the digital system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but the digital system is just one facet of the whole system -- the Universe. Our world is a two-sided coin. You can't see both sides at the same time. But you can choose which side to look at. In the communication of Information, Shannon chose not to look at the intentional Meaning of its contents, but to focus on the Container, which is neutral toward Meaning. The point being, that the invisible side of the cosmic coin is still there, like the dark side of the moon. See image below. :smile:

Right, that's why all that meaning (information) ends up being contradictory and "un-knowable". — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum information that is in superposition is indeed "un-knowable" until a measurement is taken. The measurement is a Choice of what to look at. Quantum theorists have argued about the significance of a Delayed Choice experiment. But don't ask me to make sense of it in this context --- it's just an analogy. Superposition may be confusing, but not necessarily contradictory. :grin:

Delayed Choice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

That's why the Shannon use of "information" is distinct from most common usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But it's the Distinction-that-made-a-Difference in causing a Phase Change in history from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. By changing how we think of Information, he was able to gain power over it. For example, the Bit is a distinction -- a difference (1) that makes a difference (2). The first difference is physical (an empirical observation), and the latter difference is personal -- meaning (a theory or feeling). That's why some people feel that Shannon's indirect creation (Robots) are like Frankenstein's soulless monsters.

Information Age : This surprising result is a cornerstone of the modern digital information age, where the bit reigns supreme as the universal currency of information.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-claude-shannons-information-theory-invented-the-future-20201222/

The point being that I don't see any evidence of rules of semantics, and the rules of syntax need to be interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover

The rules of Syntax (structure) are partly objective, and can be applied to any language or culture. But the "rules" of Semantics (meaning) are partly subjective & personal, yet may also be embedded in Jung's Collective Consciousness, or in Freud's Unconscious, or Chomsky's Deep Structure. Don't take those metaphors literally. They merely indicate that part of what-we-know-intuitively, and the rules-of-behavior we follow, are inherited with the human body. Hence, such standards, while important, are not inherently formal or rational. :nerd:

Rules of Semantics : Semantic rules make communication possible. They are rules that people have agreed on to give meaning to certain symbols and words. Semantic misunderstandings arise when people give different meanings to the same words or phrases
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/jackendoff69.pdf

Both Sides Now

But the "rules" of Semantics (meaning) are partly subjective & personal, yet may also be embedded in Jung's Collective Consciousness, or in Freud's Unconscious, or Chomsky's Deep Structure. Don't take those metaphors literally. They merely indicate that part of what-we-know-intuitively, and the rules-of-behavior we follow, are inherited with the human body. Hence, such standards, while important, are not inherently formal or rational. :nerd: — Gnomon

As I said, I don't believe there is such a thing as the rules of semantics. You can keep talking as if you believe that there is, but that won't change my mind. You need to show me some evidence of the reality of what you are saying, justify it. The appeal to authority is insufficient until you bring out the evidence presented by those authorities.

semantic rules make communication possible. They are rules that people have agreed on to give meaning to certain symbols and words. — Gnomon

I don't see that people agree on rules before communicating with each other. Don't you see that agreement requires communication? So this proposition seems to be really impossible, and at best a vicious circle.

The appeal to authority is insufficient until you bring out the evidence presented by those authorities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since I am not an authority on the subject of Semantics and Syntax, I was referring you to some authorities that do see evidence of commonalities, if not formal "rules", in human communication. If you are really interested in the evidence, you can click on the links. But, it seems that you have something against the idea of natural logical structure in communication. And I'm not quite sure what that objection is. :smile:

I don't see that people agree on rules before communicating with each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, except for some picky-picky philosophers, most people don't have to establish formal rules before they communicate. Instead, most of us learn the rules informally at our mother's knee, and just by growing up in a particular culture, or may even inherit some mental structure biologically. That's what I referred to as "Intuition".

Are you arguing against Chomsky's theory of innate language structure? I generally agree with the notion, but I've never studied the theory in detail. So he may have over-stated his case. But what does that have to do with Shannon's theory of Parsimonious Transmission of Information? :grin:

Born Ready for Language : Chomsky based his theory on the idea that all languages contain similar structures and rules (a universal grammar), and the fact that children everywhere acquire language the same way, and without much effort, seems to indicate that we're born wired with the basics already present in our brains.
https://www.healthline.com/health/childrens-health/chomsky-theory

For and against Chomsky : https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/forandagainstchomsky

Since I am not an authority on the subject of Semantics and Syntax, I was referring you to some authorities that do see evidence of commonalities, if not formal "rules", in human communication. If you are really interested in the evidence, you can click on the links. But, it seems that you have something against the idea of natural logical structure in communication. And I'm not quite sure what that objection is. — Gnomon

I have nothing against "natural logical structure in communication". But we cannot conclude that natural logical structure implies rules, just because artificial, or formal logic consists of rules. In fact, that's what I see as the difference between formal logic, and natural logic, the former consists of rules, the latter does not.

Well, except for some picky-picky philosophers, most people don't have to establish formal rules before they communicate. — Gnomon

Then, very clearly, your proposal that people must agree on rules in order for communication to be possible, is false. That's the point, agreeing on rules is not necessary for communication, so why assume that rules are essential to language?

Instead, most of us learn the rules informally at our mother's knee, and just by growing up in a particular culture, or may even inherit some mental structure biologically. That's what I referred to as "Intuition". — Gnomon

I really do not see how you can portray learning how to talk as a matter of learning rules. Have you ever seen children learn to talk? If so, what part of it looks like an instance of learning rules to you? Furthermore, this learning how to talk cannot be a matter of following rules which one already knows (innate grammar), otherwise one would not need to learn how to talk, already knowing the rules which make talking possible. It seems very clear from the empirical evidence, that talking is not a matter of following rules. So this type of theory appears to be inconsistent with reality.

I have nothing against "natural logical structure in communication". But we cannot conclude that natural logical structure implies rules, just because artificial, or formal logic consists of rules. In fact, that's what I see as the difference between formal logic, and natural logic, the former consists of rules, the latter does not. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I'm beginning to see your objection to the notion of "rules" in communication. Apparently you are thinking of imposed "explicit" formal rules, while I'm talking about innate "implicit" informal commonalities. As a rule (i.e. normally) humans are born with something like a mental template for language.

My position on inherent human behaviors (instincts) is basically that of cognitive psychologist Stephen Pinker in The Blank Slate. He calls it "the language instinct", which gives humans an advantage, over most animals, in social communication. Anyway, I doubt that our concepts of communication are very far apart. It's just another failure to "first define your terms". :joke:

Rules :
1.one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
1a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action. b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members. c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit.

As a Rule : usually, but not always.

The Blank Slate : arguing that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

The Language Instinct : Pinker argues that humans are born with an innate capacity for language. . . . . but dissents from Chomsky's skepticism that evolutionary theory can explain the human language instinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

Then, very clearly, your proposal that people must agree on rules in order for communication to be possible, is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not what I was proposing. Sorry for the mis-communication. :smile:

I really do not see how you can portray learning how to talk as a matter of learning rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK. I'll try to avoid using the term "rules", since it seems to trigger your indignation. Instead, I'll use something like "norm". The human language instinct is not a "law of nature" or a "man-made rule", but it is common enough to view it as "the rule rather than the exception". :cool:

Rule : If something is the rule, it is the normal state of affairs.

Language structure : You're born with it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140408122316.htm

I think I'm beginning to see your objection to the notion of "rules" in communication. Apparently you are thinking of imposed "explicit" formal rules, while I'm talking about innate "implicit" informal commonalities. As a rule (i.e. normally) humans are born with something like a mental template for language. — Gnomon

Isn't a "rule" necessarily formal though? That's the point, to talk about Innate, informal commonalities, as if they are rules, appears like a mistake to me.

My position on inherent human behaviors (instincts) is basically that of cognitive psychologist Stephen Pinker in The Blank Slate. He calls it "the language instinct", which gives humans an advantage, over most animals, in social communication. Anyway, I doubt that our concepts of communication are very far apart. It's just another failure to "first define your terms". — Gnomon

That might be the case, if we both see this "instinct" as an unknown concerning its true nature, then we have commonality here.

OK. I'll try to avoid using the term "rules", since it seems to trigger your indignation. Instead, I'll use something like "norm". The human language instinct is not a "law of nature" or a "man-made rule", but it is common enough to view it as "the rule rather than the exception". :cool:

Rule : If something is the rule, it is the normal state of affairs. — Gnomon

The problem now, is that with the switch from "rule" to "norm" we jump from the cause of the behaviour (following a rule, instinct, or whatever the cause is), to a description of the behaviour. Then all we are saying is that it is common, or normal for people to act in a particular way, but we have no approach to the cause of that commonality. If we say that the person is following a rule, we create the illusion that we know why the person is acting in that particular way. That is why I objected to that use of "rule".

Isn't a "rule" necessarily formal though? That's the point, to talk about Innate, informal commonalities, as if they are rules, appears like a mistake to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, in your strict vocabulary of technical terms, that might be the case. Since I'm not a professional scientist, I tend to use such jargon more loosely. Besides, in psychology, formal "rules" or "laws" are hard to come by. Most behaviors that psychologists take-for-granted are more like rules-of-thumb than empirically-confirmed-natural-laws. That's why The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has to be regularly updated to weed-out definitions of disorders that turn-out to be too broad or too narrow or just plain wrong. :smile:

7 Psychological Rules That Can Make Your Life Shine Brighter :
https://brightside.me/inspiration-psychology/7-psychological-rules-that-can-make-your-life-shine-brighter-533910/

That might be the case, if we both see this "instinct" as an unknown concerning its true nature, then we have commonality here. — Metaphysician Undercover

The "language instinct" is a well-known effect, but its cause is a matter of debate. Stephen Pinker says that "A three-year-old toddler is "a grammatical genius"--master of most constructions, obeying adult rules of language." And he attributes those "rules" to a combination of Nature and Nurture. But he provides lots of observational evidence, so the mechanism behind the human talent for language is not exactly unknown. Some may claim it's a miracle, but Pinker thinks it's a Darwinian adaptation. :smile:

The Language Instinct : To Pinker, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology psycholinguist, the explanation for this miracle is that language is an instinct, an evolutionary adaptation that is partly "hard-wired" into the brain and partly learned.
https://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Creates-Perennial-Classics-ebook/dp/B0049B1VOU

but we have no approach to the cause of that commonality. If we say that the person is following a rule, we create the illusion that we know why the person is acting in that particular way. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I can say to that is, Pinker is the reigning expert on psycholinguistics, and he thinks he knows why humans act like they have a special talent for language, that other animals don't. But his theory is based on evolutionary assumptions, that some other linguists, and theologians, disagree with. Yet again, the science of Psychology is inherently Philosophical & Meta-Physical, hence not empirical, and will always be subject to debate. But Pinker's explanation is close-enough for me . . . for now. :cool:

Is psychology a “real” science? : Does it really matter?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/

PS___Shannon's definition of passive carrier "Information" is on the reductive & empirical end of the Science spectrum. But my definition of active causal "EnFormAction" is more towards the holistic & philosophical end, along with Psychology and History. Does that lack of hard evidence invalidate the hypothesis that Enformation might be the driver of evolution --- including the Language Instinct? Maybe. What do you think?

Information/Enformation :
* Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".

Apparently, in your strict vocabulary of technical terms, that might be the case. Since I'm not a professional scientist, I tend to use such jargon more loosely. Besides, in psychology, formal "rules" or "laws" are hard to come by. Most behaviors that psychologists take-for-granted are more like rules-of-thumb than empirically-confirmed-natural-laws. That's why The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has to be regularly updated to weed-out definitions of disorders that turn-out to be too broad or too narrow or just plain wrong. :smile: — Gnomon

Don't you see a problem here? If psychologists are referring to "rules' which account for, or cause certain types of behaviour, and there is really no rules there, then what are they actually talking about? They've taken this term, "rules", which has no real referent, and they use it to account for all sorts of behaviours. Since the thing referred to by the word is just a phantom, so also the understanding expressed is just a phantom.

The "language instinct" is a well-known effect, but it's cause is a matter of debate. Stephen Pinker says that "A three-year-old toddler is "a grammatical genius"--master of most constructions, obeying adult rules of language." And he attributes those "rules" to a combination of Nature and Nurture. But he provides lots of observational evidence, so the mechanism behind the human talent for language is not exactly unknown. Some may claim it's a miracle, but Pinker thinks it's a Darwinian adaptation. — Gnomon

See, even Pinker is assuming "rules", but this is just a phantom understanding, the word is used to refer to what is actually not understood, as a coverup, creating the illusion of an understanding. If we dismiss this term "rule", and look at the fact that a human being is a free willing and free thinking human being, then we have a different perspective form which we can ask why is a person inclined to act in such a way as to create the appearance that one is following rules, when really there are no rules being followed.

PS___Shannon's definition of passive carrier "Information" is on the reductive & empirical end of the Science spectrum. But my definition of active causal "EnFormAction" is more towards the holistic & philosophical end, along with Psychology and History. Does that lack of hard evidence invalidate the hypothesis that Enformation might be the driver of evolution --- including the Language Instinct? Maybe. What do you think? — Gnomon

I have difficulty with the "holistic" approach because in my mind it cannot adequately account for the appearance of intention and free choice.

Don't you see a problem here? If psychologists are referring to "rules' which account for, or cause certain types of behaviour, and there is really no rules there, then what are they actually talking about? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't have a problem with that as-if usage of "rules". It's no worse than atheist scientists referring to observed regularities in nature (Laws) as-if they were imposed by a divine authority. When patterns in nature appear to be rule-governed or lawful, I attribute that predictable behavior of natural systems, not to top-down Design, but to bottom-up Programming. Human programs are intentionally teleological, but the final output is unknown until the computation is complete --- or the fat lady sings, whichever comes first. :wink:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Natural Laws : Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. Neither Natural Laws, as invoked in legal or ethical theories, nor Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists’ attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, . . . Some of these implications involve accidental truths, false existentials, the correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of free will. Perhaps the most important implication of each theory is whether the universe is a cosmic coincidence or driven by specific, eternal laws of nature.
https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

If we dismiss this term "rule", and look at the fact that a human being is a free willing and free thinking human being, then we have a different perspective form which we can ask why is a person inclined to act in such a way as to create the appearance that one is following rules, when really there are no rules being followed. — Metaphysician Undercover

My interpretation of evolution as bottom-up design is compatible with human Free Will. :yum:

Freewill Within Determinism : “Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links. Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.” ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page68.html

I have difficulty with the "holistic" approach because in my mind it cannot adequately account for the appearance of intention and free choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you are thinking of the New Age interpretation of "Holism". But my usage is that of the guy who literally wrote the book. It's only "mystical" in the sense that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". :nerd:

Holism : Regarding the concept of Holism, he says it "has a somewhat mystical association, in its commitment to a single unified whole being the ultimate reality. But there are strong scientific arguments in its favour. . . . The American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is good evidence for holism. Entangled particles behave as a whole, even if they are separated by such large distances that it is impossible for any kind of signal to travel between them."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_holism.html

Neural holism and free will : This approach locates free will in fully integrated behavior in which all of a person's beliefs and desires, implicitly represented in the brain, automatically contribute to an act.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515080307765

Holism and Evolution : although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism.[3] Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
https://reflexus.org/wp-content/uploads/Smut-Holism-and-Evolution.pdf

My interpretation of evolution as bottom-up design is compatible with human Free Will. — Gnomon

I agree with your bottom-up interpretation of reality, in principle, and also I agree that it is compatible with free will.

Natural Laws : Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. Neither Natural Laws, as invoked in legal or ethical theories, nor Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists’ attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, . . . Some of these implications involve accidental truths, false existentials, the correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of free will. Perhaps the most important implication of each theory is whether the universe is a cosmic coincidence or driven by specific, eternal laws of nature. — Gnomon

I don't understand this part. Are you making three classifications, scientific laws, laws of nature, and also natural laws. As you can see, I would only have 2 classes, scientific laws which are inductive descriptions, and supposed natural laws which are moral conclusions about how we ought to behave. People justify ethical principles by referring to natural laws. In the case of "laws of nature", I think that some people want to justify scientific laws as true by claiming that they are representations of the laws of nature. But you can see, as I've argued, that I don't believe we're justified in even calling what is represented by these laws as "rules' or "laws" or anything like that.

Perhaps you are thinking of the New Age interpretation of "Holism". But my usage is that of the guy who literally wrote the book. It's only "mystical" in the sense that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". :nerd: — Gnomon

I do not see how you can make bottom-up mechanisms consistent with holism. If an individual agent has free will to act as one pleases, then on what basis is there a whole composed of numerous individuals. How can individual parts, acting freely, bottom-up, be said to comprise a whole?

I don't understand this part. Are you making three classifications, scientific laws, laws of nature, and also natural laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

That wasn't my classification, but a definition of "Law" as used in different contexts : Scientific Laws (observed regularities, with no inference of divine regulation), Laws of Nature (religious assertion of divine Lawgiver), and Natural Laws (a legal term, which doesn't take a stand either way on the provenance of the observed order in Nature).:cool:

But you can see, as I've argued, that I don't believe we're justified in even calling what is represented by these laws as "rules' or "laws" or anything like that. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, "what is represented by these [so-called] laws"? Would you prefer to call them "accidental random patterns in Nature"? Einstein referred to them as "Reason", "order", "harmony", "structure", and "lawful", among other terms. :smile:
Einstein :
. . . "the Reason that manifests itself in nature"
. . . "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people."
. . . "Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."
. . . "the marvelous structure of existence"
. . ."I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
https://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Nature-Quotations.htm

I do not see how you can make bottom-up mechanisms consistent with holism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you may be thinking of "Holism" in the New Age sense. Scientists prefer to use the term "Systems" in order to avoid any theological implications. If you think of Evolution as an ongoing Program of world-creation, then the final output is unknown (undetermined), even though the Programmer specified the parameters by which the Solution will be judged. Initial Conditions & Natural Laws are parameters, but the system uses statistical Randomness to instill novelty into the otherwise deterministic system. My essay on Intelligent Evolution is an attempt to introduce the notion of bottom-up creation of an unfathomably huge Uni-verse (one whole) from a minuscule mathematical Singularity. :nerd:

Freewill Within Determinism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. In the Enformationism worldview, our space-time physical reality is a holon that is a component of the enfernal G*D-Mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html#Holism

OK, "what is represented by these [so-called] laws"? Would you prefer to call them "accidental random patterns in Nature"? Einstein referred to them as "Reason", "order", "harmony", "structure", and "lawful", among other terms. :smile: — Gnomon

They are obviously not accidental or random. They are described by laws, so they are not random, but that does not imply that they are governed by laws. We are governed by laws, but we have freedom of choice to break the laws. The things which are described by the laws of science do not appear to have the freedom to break those laws. Therefore the actions of these things are inconsistent with being "governed by laws", as we know it. So it's clearly fallacious logic to proceed from the premise that natural things are describable by laws, to the conclusion that they are governed by laws.

Again, you may be thinking of "Holism" in the New Age sense. Scientists prefer to use the term "Systems" in order to avoid any theological implications. If you think of Evolution as an ongoing Program of world-creation, then the final output is unknown (undetermined), even though the Programmer specified the parameters by which the Solution will be judged. Initial Conditions & Natural Laws are parameters, but the system uses statistical Randomness to instill novelty into the otherwise deterministic system. My essay on Intelligent Evolution is an attempt to introduce the notion of bottom-up creation of an unfathomably huge Uni-verse (one whole) from a minuscule mathematical Singularity. — Gnomon

As far as I can tell, you haven't defined "holism" yet so as to make it consistent with bottom-up creation. You have here a vague analogy between a computer program and bottom-up creation, but no description of how any sort of holism fits into this scenario.

So it's clearly fallacious logic to proceed from the premise that natural things are describable by laws, to the conclusion that they are governed by laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, we butt heads over specific vs general terminology. In human societies, governors (kings, congressmen, parliamentarians) make the laws, and the governed people obey the laws. So, if you observe a pattern of obedience to a law, wouldn't you infer that the obeyers were somehow compelled to conform? The observed pattern of behavior can be described in terms of specific actions, or in terms of a governing principle : a Law.

The relevant distinction is between a specific pattern, and the general cause of that pattern. For example, if most cars wait patiently at a red light, is that a random coincidence, or would you infer that there is some governing Law that they are obeying? If you watch long enough, you may see a car that does not stop at a red light, and then is pulled-over by a law-enforcement officer.

Some scientists refer to Natural Laws as merely "habits". The implication is that the predictable regularities of natural behaviors is characteristic of individual actors, not of any general imperative imposed from above. Is this your position? That makes sense from a Reductive (part) viewpoint, but not from a Holistic (system) perspective. So again, our different understanding reflects a preference for looking at Isolated Parts or Whole Systems --- or for Bottom-up Inductive Reasoning or Top-down Deductive Logic. Both approaches are reasonable, but applicable to different contexts. No need to butt heads . . . just define terms and contexts. :smile:

Law is a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and the art of justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

Principle : a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.

Most of The So-Called Laws of Nature Are More Like Habits : There is no need to suppose that all the laws of nature sprang into being fully formed at the moment of the Big Bang, like a kind of cosmic Napoleonic code, or that they exist in a metaphysical realm beyond time and space.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/most-of-the-so-called-laws-of-nature-are-more-like-habits

Inductive reasoning, or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations. Some people think of inductive reasoning as “bottom-up” logic, because it involves widening specific premises out into broader generalizations.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-inductive-reasoning

As far as I can tell, you haven't defined "holism" yet so as to make it consistent with bottom-up creation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, you haven't looked at the links. The connection between Holism and bottom-up creation is much too complex for a forum post. Instead, I have dozens of essays that look at different aspects of the question --- from the perspective of a top-down Whole, and a bottom-up Holon. You seem to think Top-Down and Bottom-Up are mutually exclusive. But I think it's a question of perspective, point-of-view, frame-of-reference.

The computer program example illustrates that the Programmer writes a top-down strategy for calculating the answer to a problem. But if the answer was already known or knowable, there would be no need to bother with laborious calculation. In my worldview, the Programmer had a question about FreeWill that could only be answered by actually allowing some degree of freedom. Even an omnipotent creator could not mandate moral behavior without permitting agents to choose.

So, I view Natural Evolution as a program of Freedom Within Determinism. Natural Laws place limits upon freedom, but Randomness is free to experiment with various solutions to the question of Survival. Likewise, Natural Selection is a top-down choice of fitness characteristics, but Random mutations provide many potential bottom-up solutions to the Ethics of Freedom. Hence, I view Evolution as an on-going experiment in the creation of Moral Agents. The World System is a whole, and the individual Agents are holons. The System itself is only retro-predictable after the output has been computed. And the Agents are unpredictable in that they are able to choose different paths in life. :cool:

Holistic Systems : Holistic approaches are those that consider systems in their entirety rather than just focusing on specific properties or specific components. In each case, enormous culture shifts are required in education, training, business, government, and economic models.
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/holistic.pdf

Holon : something that is simultaneously a whole and a part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)

Free Will : The puzzle of reconciling 'free will' with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism. This dilemma leads to a moral dilemma as well: the question of how to assign responsibility for actions if they are caused entirely by past events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. . . . Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent
Note -- Responsibility is a bottom-up reaction to a top-down forced choice. Cause - Choice - Effect.

Again, we butt heads over specific vs general terminology. In human societies, governors (kings, congressmen, parliamentarians) make the laws, and the governed people obey the laws. So, if you observe a pattern of obedience to a law, wouldn't you infer that the obeyers were somehow compelled to conform? The observed pattern of behavior can be described in terms of specific actions, or in terms of a governing principle : a Law. — Gnomon

What we observe is a very clear difference between human beings obeying the laws of governance, and inanimate objects behaving in a regular way which is describable as laws of physics. The human beings have free will to disobey the laws when they desire to, and often do, at risk of punishment. The inanimate objects continue to act as the law describes, without exception. If there is any exception, we do not punish the things, we look for inaccuracies in the law. See the difference? In the first case, if there are exceptions, the human beings, not the laws, are wrong, and the humans ought to be punished and encouraged to act the right way. In the second case, if there are exceptions, the laws are wrong, not the behaviour of the things, and the laws need to be changed accordingly.

This difference is due to the difference we perceive between human beings and inanimate things. Human beings have free will, and can be trained, habitualized, to change their behaviour, and avoid breaking the law. Inanimate things, we assume, must act the way that they do, with no choice to do otherwise, therefore we must adapt our descriptive laws to match their behaviour, not vise versa.

The relevant distinction is between a specific pattern, and the general cause of that pattern. For example, if most cars wait patiently at a red light, is that a random coincidence, or would you infer that there is some governing Law that they are obeying? If you watch long enough, you may see a car that does not stop at a red light, and then is pulled-over by a law-enforcement officer.

Some scientists refer to Natural Laws as merely "habits". The implication is that the predictable regularities of natural behaviors is characteristic of individual actors, not of any general imperative imposed from above. Is this your position? That makes sense from a Reductive (part) viewpoint, but not from a Holistic (system) perspective. So again, our different understanding reflects a preference for looking at Isolated Parts or Whole Systems --- or for Bottom-up Inductive Reasoning or Top-down Deductive Logic. Both approaches are reasonable, but applicable to different contexts. No need to butt heads . . . just define terms and contexts. — Gnomon

So, the point I made, is that we cannot proceed logically from the observation that the behaviour of inanimate things can be described by laws, to the conclusion that these things are governed by laws, because of the difference I described above. Being governed by laws implies that the things governed can freely act otherwise. Being describable by laws of science implies that things cannot freely act otherwise. This is a fundamental difference and the incompatibility needs to be resolved. If, for example, we could demonstrate that inanimate things could freely act in ways which are other than the laws of science, and are in some way (fear of punishment or something like that) compelled to act that way, we'd have the premises required to conclude governance. But we don't.

Apparently, you haven't looked at the links. The connection between Holism and bottom-up creation is much too complex for a forum post. Instead, I have dozens of essays that look at different aspects of the question --- from the perspective of a top-down Whole, and a bottom-up Holon. You seem to think Top-Down and Bottom-Up are mutually exclusive. But I think it's a question of perspective, point-of-view, frame-of-reference. — Gnomon

I don't see that the concept of a holon solves the issue of bottom-up causation. The holon itself must be composed of parts, or else there is no way to account for its capacity for free acts. If it is composed of parts, it seems impossible to avoid infinite regress. If it is not composed of parts, then how does it get the capacity for freedom, being constrained by its environment and top-down causation? How could any sort of real causation be internal to it (bottom-up causation), rather than it just being forced by its environment?

Natural Laws place limits upon freedom, but Randomness is free to experiment with various solutions to the question of Survival. — Gnomon

This really doesn't makes sense. Randomness cannot experiment, all it can do is continue in a random fashion. You could assume an agent which experiments with randomness, but then you'd need to account for the existence of that agent. What is this agent, the soul? Where does it come from? How would you reconcile the concept of holon with the concept of soul? Is the soul a holon?

The human beings have free will to disobey the laws when they desire to, and often do, at risk of punishment. The inanimate objects continue to act as the law describes, without exception. If there is any exception, we do not punish the things, we look for inaccuracies in the law. See the difference? — Metaphysician Undercover

I see the distinction you are making. But the observation that some people voluntarily run red lights, does not diminish the punitive power of the law. That's exactly why we have Law-Enforcers, who can't rewrite "inaccurate" laws. The Exception proves the Rule. :joke:

So, the point I made, is that we cannot proceed logically from the observation that the behaviour of inanimate things can be described by laws, to the conclusion that these things are governed by laws, because of the difference I described above. Being governed by laws implies that the things governed can freely act otherwise. Being describable by laws of science implies that things cannot freely act otherwise. This is a fundamental difference and the incompatibility needs to be resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly why I have made an argument for FreeWill Within Determinism. Which is an update on old theological arguments against Determinism and Predestination of human Souls. Fortunately for us non-theologians, immortal souls are no longer necessary to escape Fate. :grin:

Freewill Within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.” __Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

I don't see that the concept of a holon solves the issue of bottom-up causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

True. Most "holons" don't have any freedom from Top-Down causation. But the exceptional "holon" in my assertion is a "a self-conscious link" in the chain of Causation. Theologians attribute that significant distinction to a divine Soul. But, from a scientific perspective, Free Choice could emerge from evolution along with the exceptional Self Concept of primates. :cool:

Can You See Your Self? : The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness developed by Gordon Gallup Jr in 1970. The test gauges self-awareness . . . .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/mirror_test.htm

This really doesn't makes sense. Randomness cannot experiment, all it can do is continue in a random fashion. You could assume an agent which experiments with randomness, but then you'd need to account for the existence of that agent. What is this agent, the soul? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, with the literal picky-picky definitions. My comment was not a statement of natural fact, but an analogy with our common concept of Agency. Of course Randomness is not "really" a free agent, or a scientist. And the agent of Randomness is not a Soul, but the hypothetical Programmer, who metaphorically used a random number generator (algorithm) to produce a patternless distribution of forms, from which Natural Selection (another algorithm) can select those best fitting the Programmer's criteria for fitness. Again, these are not scientific statements, but poetic analogies, referring to questions that are beyond the reach of the Scientific Method, but not beyond philosophical imagination. :chin:

Agency Attribution : to non-humans and non-persons
https://epistemocritique.org/the-right-amount-of-agency-microscopic-beings-vs-other-nonhuman-creatures-in-contemporary-poetic-representations/
PS___ I call my hypothetical random agent "Randy". He's my imaginary friend. :yum:

Sorry, officer. I didn't mean to run that red light. I thought I could make it through on the yellow light. Do I need to show you my Poetic License? :yikes:

Poetic License : the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.

Philosophical Metaphors :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/

Sign seen along the Philosophical highway : "Caution Metaphorical Bumps Ahead".

In my worldview, the Programmer had a question about FreeWill that could only be answered by actually allowing some degree of freedom. Even an omnipotent creator could not mandate moral behavior without permitting agents to choose. — Gnomon

:up:

All I can say to that is, Pinker is the reigning expert on psycholinguistics, and he thinks he knows why humans act like they have a special talent for language, that other animals don't. But his theory is based on evolutionary assumptions, that some other linguists, and theologians, disagree with. — Gnomon

I like many of Singer's Pinker’s books - until he sets foot in philosophy.

I like many of Singer 's books - until he sets foot in philosophy. — Wayfarer

Are you referring to Pinker or Singer meddling in Philosophy? Both are guilty, but that's what makes them interesting to me. Philosophy picks-up where Science is forced to stop, due to its self-imposed limitations. However, I agree that Singer sometimes goes to unwarranted extremes. And Pinker is usually careful to note his flights of philosophical fancy. :smile:

Sorry! :yikes: Brief moment of dyslexia there, meant to refer to Pinker. Corrected.

Pinker takes ‘neo-Darwinian materialism’ for granted, as if it’s the obvious truth about life, the universe and everything. When he narrows his scope to evolutionary psychology and the like, then it’s not so important, but as soon as he starts to wax philosophical, his underlying scientism shows.