No, that's a "strawman", as you like to say. When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today. Moreover, understanding the distinction between them is what Chalmers famously called "the hard problem'. Studying matter & energy is "easy" because they are accessible to our physical senses. But Information is only known via the sixth sense of Reason, which "sees" the invisible relationships between both material objects (geometry) and between mental concepts (ratios, meanings).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. — 180 Proof
Yeah, in other words, both 'matters of fact' and 'matters of feeling (or speculation)'. The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature.When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. — Gnomon
"Psychologists and philosophers are still struggling" only in so far as their assumptions are category mistakes (like e.g. idealism, which conflates epistemology with (in terms of) ontology).In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today.
Nothing against Dr. Koch but a much more insightful, productive and profound neuroscientist and philosopher currently working today is Thomas Metzinger. Others I find more scientifically interesting than Dr. KochChristof Koch is probably the most prominent Neuroscientist today.
Btw, each in his own way shows that "panpsychism" amounts to a woo-of-the-gaps solution in search of a "hard" pseudo-"problem". :roll:... Antonio Damasio (SMH & CST), Sebastian Seung (CT), Stanislas Dehaene (GWT), R.S. Bakker (BBT & HNT) ... — 180 Proof
I suppose that's why some people find Science to be "cold" : it doesn't understand the significance of metaphysical "warmth", as opposed to physical Heat. But this thread is only indirectly about Science anyway ; it's about the philosophical conjecture of a Mind behind Evolution. So, we've gotten way off track. But (strawman warning) I suppose you agree with Daniel Dennett that there is no such thing as Consciousness or Mind -- just neurons creating illusions. :grin:The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature. — 180 Proof
Same as the "physical substance" of e.g. perception or memory.PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ;ectoplasm?
That's exactly my understanding of Consciousness, as the Metaphysical Function of the physical Brain. Minding is what the Brain does. But the "atoms" of Mind are "bits" of Information. A "process" is not a physical "thing" but an inductive inference from observation of Change. For example, a stationary billiard ball begins to move when struck by the cue ball. But we don't actually see any transfer of momentum, we infer it. And the human ability-to-infer-the-unseen (e.g. invisible forces) is (strawman alert) what you call "woo". :grin:I hazard to interpret Dennett meaning that "consciousness or mind" is not a thing but a process. For me, minding is to brain as breathing is to lungs. — 180 Proof
I understand your skepticism of much "science of mind", which strays into woo territory. For example, Parapsychologists tend to view the mind (Psi) as-if it's an intangible substance (dark energy??) out there in the Aether. I just read a section of Information-Consciousness-Reality, in which the author concludes from his review of Classical Physics, Psychology, and Quantum Physics, that the "seeds" of consciousness are inherent in the physical world. That is how Panpsychism explains the "hard problem" of how Objective matter & energy can combine to produce a Subjective perspective. The assumption is that it was not a miraculous effect of cosmic-scale statistics, but a natural process like a "seed" becoming a tree. As with DNA, the design-of-a-tree (its Platonic Form) was already encoded in the seed, waiting to be transformed by the process of metabolism from potential to actual.Btw, each in his own way shows that "panpsychism" amounts to a woo-of-the-gaps solution in search of a "hard" pseudo-"problem". — 180 Proof
And that similar substance is . . . . ? Materialists have no explanation for real-ideal phenomena, such as Perception. Can a rock perceive? Does matter have memory? If not, where did those handy functions of minds come from? Neurons store electrical energy in chemical form : a transformation. But what transforms those chemicals into salient memories? Could it be . . . . Information???PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?
Same as the "physical substance" of e.g. perception or memory. — 180 Proof
I read "philosophy of mind" and "neuroscience" all the time. But Physicalist explanations always seem to teeter on the edge of the old Cartesian duality gulf : how do you make the Quantum Leap from Brain to Mind? Sure, Mind is the function of Brain, but there is a qualitative difference between objective neuronal wiring and subjective perception. Does a TV camera know what it is looking at? Can you give me a brief summary of the physical explanation for Perception you are referring to. Maybe I missed it. :smile:Physicalists do. Read some philosophy of mind and especially some good neuroscience. — 180 Proof
I can't see how you can still ask this (mysterian) pseudo-question if, as you claim, you're more than superficially acquainted with contemporary neuroscience and relevant topics in the philosophy of mind. Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does.how do you make theQuantum Leapfrom Brain to Mind? — Gnomon
Sure. But how does it do it? How does a jello-like mass of electrical & chemical wiring convert incoming energy into Perception, and thence into Conception? Do physical computers & robots have a subjective perspective of their world? Do they know that they know? Is that a "mysterian" question, or a valid scientific & philosophical query? A materialistic description of brains provides a simplistic mechanical answer to what the brain does, but it doesn't explain how or why that transition from Objective to Subjective occurs. Several philosophers of mind have argued that animals & machines could perform their survival functions without knowing why they do what they do. Discerning the difference between Brain & Mind is what Chalmers called the "hard question".I can't see how you can still ask this (mysterian) pseudo-question . . . . Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does. — 180 Proof
How the brain functions and outputs "consciousness" is a scientific problem, it seems to me, and not "a valid philosophical query" as it might have once been. Btw, of course, the brain is not a computer (program); still, the very fact of it's complexity does not warrant the "mysterian" belief that the brain is, even in principle, too complex to sufficiently explain itself (or "consciousness"). Remember Aristotle and the vacuum ("horror vacui" :scream: )? And Lord Kelvin's 'end of science' prediction in 1900? :smirk:How does a jello-like mass of electrical & chemical wiring convert incoming energy into Perception, and thence into Conception? [ ... ] Is that a "mysterian" question, or a valid scientific & philosophical query? — Gnomon
Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does. — 180 Proof
how do you make the Quantum Leap from Brain to Mind? — Gnomon
I've noticed that a significant number of posters on The Philosophy Forum seem to be embarrassed by Philosophy as a discipline, because it studies things that literally don't matter : ideas & ideals & beliefs. But those unreal things do indeed matter to the majority of humanity, who know nothing of Science or Philosophy. Perhaps the huddled masses don't matter either. Meat puppets have no intrinsic value.How the brain functions and outputs "consciousness" is a scientific problem, it seems to me, and not "a valid philosophical query" as it might have once been. — 180 Proof
Yes. But the Enformationism worldview provides a novel vocabulary to explain that vital distinction : the difference that makes a difference to sentient creatures. That theory pictures Evolution as a process of converting simple into complex, and potential into actual. Information (EnFormAction) is the universal Force that causes such progressive change -- from lifeless matter, to living matter, to thinking minds. And that creative Energy exists in both physical and metaphysical forms, just as intangible Energy can be converted into palpable Mass, which we interpret as Matter. :nerd:I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). — TheMadFool
This has been repeated so often that I actually don't need to say it but I'll do it here anyway just in case not mentioning it might sidetrack the reader. What I'm referring to is how evolution is considered as a game of chance - random mutations being the engine that drives adaptation, a necessity if organisms are to survive in an environment that's mercurial. — TheMadFool
As a philosophical worldview, regarding our fellow humans as possessing "intrinsic value" is what makes the difference between love & tolerance for our neighbors, and exterminating masses of them in gas ovens, as-if they are vermin to be eradicated. The alternative view is Instrumental value : what can you do for me?Meat puppets have no intrinsic value. — Gnomon
They seem to value each another, so I don't see what "intrinsic" has to do with it. — 180 Proof
I see your point, though I characterize them as existential stances rather "worldviews", such as in Buber's terms of I-Thou and I-It, respectively, or Levinas' infinity and totality. Yes, "meat-puppets" do take these "alternative" stances towards each other sometimes sequentially, sometimes simultaneously, and yet rarely, I suspect, take either an "intrinsic" or "instrumental" stance exclusively (for which, unless pathological, we "meat-puppets" are too akratic-heteronomous). After all, even violent bigots tend to love their children and misogynists tend to love their grandmas, no?As a philosophical worldview, regarding our fellow humans as possessing "intrinsic value" is what makes the difference between love & tolerance for our neighbors, and exterminating masses of them in gas ovens, as-if they are vermin to be eradicated. The alternative view is Instrumental value: what can you do for me? — Gnomon
In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be. — TheMadFool
Yes. Like those pioneers of queer Quantum theory, serious scientists have been working, since the turn of a new century, on a plausible theory to explain -- without resort to miracles -- how Life arose from non-life, and how Mind emerged from Mindless matter. And the spotlight is now pointing at generic (universal) Information as the "difference maker".I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). This is what Gnomon is probably referring to by Quantum leap.
Having said that, we've been able to replicate logic, an ability we pride ourselves as possessing, we even go so far as to define ourselves with it, on unmistakably dead matter (computers) while as of yet being unable to create a synthetic cell that can match up to a single bacterium. — TheMadFool
Sorry to butt-in, but . . . TMF was probably referring to the intelligence behind long-term plans (teleology) instead of short-term utility calculations (more wool good). And the "intelligence" is not in the individual fuzzy elephant, but in the emergent system. Modern scientists are now copying the Chance + Choice model of evolution in order to design complex products that would otherwise take years of trial & error (more wool not so good in a warmer climate). :nerd:Haven't followed the thread, only responding to this. But I don't agree. Say I'm a wooly mammoth and I notice the climate is getting cooler. By random chance I would mate with any old mammoth and if the weather gets colder and I mated with a not-so-woolly mammoth, my offspring would be out of luck. But if I'm a smart, planning kind of mammoth, I would mate with the wooliest mammoth I could find so as to give my offspring the best chance of survival in the coming cold snap. — fishfry
Yes. But the Enformationism worldview provides a novel vocabulary to explain that vital distinction : the difference that makes a difference to sentient creatures. That theory pictures Evolution as a process of converting simple into complex, and potential into actual. Information (EnFormAction) is the universal Force that causes such progressive change -- from lifeless matter, to living matter, to thinking minds. And that creative Energy exists in both physical and metaphysical forms, just as intangible Energy can be converted into palpable Mass, which we interpret as Matter. :nerd: — Gnomon
Mutation doesn't drive evolution: it permits evolution. Environmental changes drive evolution. Mutation is the noise, not the parameters or the cost function, in a comparable optimisation problem.
And as for strategies, the imperfection of copying a large amount of data using mindless biological machines with no oversight is the opposite of one. Pre-life physical laws account for this noise, no intent required. What we have evolved instead is strategies for the opposite: the surprisingly high fidelity of RNA copying. If we must infer an intent, surely that was to staunch random mutation? But this too is perfectly explicable in terms of environmental selection pressures. — Kenosha Kid
Haven't followed the thread, only responding to this. But I don't agree. Say I'm a wooly mammoth and I notice the climate is getting cooler. By random chance I would mate with any old mammoth and if the weather gets colder and I mated with a not-so-woolly mammoth, my offspring would be out of luck. But if I'm a smart, planning kind of mammoth, I would mate with the wooliest mammoth I could find so as to give my offspring the best chance of survival in the coming cold snap.
In other words planning beats chance. Right? — fishfry
The point is we have to make decisions without knowing all the relevant information. — TheMadFool
What sort of plan would you recommend? — TheMadFool
The claim was that acting randomly was better than trying to intelligently plan. I can't understand that. Nobody would live their life like that. — fishfry
The solution would depend on the problem, right? — TheMadFool
Thoughtful planning using the best available information, imperfect though it may be, would always be better than acting randomly and hoping for a favorable outcome. I can't fathom your assertion to the contrary. Or if you were paraphrasing the OP, I can't fathom that either. — fishfry
A simple question: Given what we know and what we don't how would you design evolution? In other words, if you were on the team that designs evolution, what sort of features would make it robust? — TheMadFool
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.