Evolution is non-random — TheMadFool
If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool.If x has a telos then x has to be non-random — TheMadFool
If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool. — 180 Proof
Public service announcenent:
DON'T SNIFF GLUE, FOOL. — 180 Proof
You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos. — 180 Proof
I'd say my perspective is evidentiary & scientific while, on this topic, TMF's perspective is uninformed & pseudo-philosophical.You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. — Gnomon
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system generating (and consisting of) lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism).I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system of lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism). — 180 Proof
Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me). — 180 Proof
Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning, . The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G. :roll:So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. — Gnomon
I was responding to this quote :Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof
Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature.I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". — Gnomon
No worries.I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement.
The statement, "If X is non-random, then X has a telos or X doesn't have a telos" [making the logical structure more explicit] is a tautology [the consequent is itself a tautology and is always true and if the consequent of a conditional statement is always true, the entire conditional is true but only as a tautology]. Since your statement, beautifully and lovingly crafted as it may be, is a tautology, its truth is not dependent on any other proposition i.e. it can't be an empirical claim and empirical claims are, whatever else they may be, definitely not tautological - they need to backed up with evidence, strong evidence preferrably. — TheMadFool
1. If the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random
2. X is observed to be non-random
Ergo,
3. The hypothesis that X has telos istrueconfirmed — TheMadFool
I was responding to this quote :Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof
Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature. — 180 Proof
Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote.If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? — Gnomon
Sorry about that! When I started to reply yesterday, I found that the previous day's reply was already in the comment box, and the only option was to "post comment" -- resulting in a duplicate post. That has happened before, and I don't know what causes the old comment to be retained as a draft after posting.Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote. — 180 Proof
Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you.I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". — Gnomon
How do you read a categorical assertion in that, G? :roll:My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
I understand 'metaphysics' to pertain to concepts (& systematicity) and not how the world must or happens to be. Thus, to my mind, your statement is incoherent. Yeah, one can reflect on the physical in a metaphysical way (e.g. hylomorphism), but there aren't any non-abstract, or factually concrete, 'objects of metaphysics'. And no 'ontological fiat' obtains – that'd be woo-of-the-gaps magical thinking and not philosophy. Simply put, the world within one's field of vision is not "corrected" by one's corrective lenses, which is what metaphysics consists in. Remember: Spinoza was a lens grinder by trade (re: scientific instruments) as well as by vocation (re: speculative immanence) and N O T a conjurer of 'otherworldly, realer-than-real, transcendent, supernaturalia'.But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical.
So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you. — 180 Proof
I can't answer no matter how many times you repeat this strawman. :roll:So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? — Gnomon
That's as silly as asking 'What does music consist of?' 'What does breathing or walking consist of?'And what does [c]onsciousness consist of ... ?
Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof
Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof
Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic? :smile:My recent thoughts on "thoughts": — 180 Proof
Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical.Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. — Gnomon
Apparently you've not read Skinner or don't understand his "behaviorism" as well as you're at a loss for showing me how I get "thoughts" wrong coping-out instead on ad hominem-like editorializing. I suppose digestion is a "reductive attitude" to metabolism too, huh? :sweat: You're shooting at what looks like pigeons again, Gnomon, with shots actually ricocheting off of satellites in orbit when they hit anything at all. :smirk:Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism" ... — Gnomon
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.