:up: :100:

LOL, tell Banno, there is a there there :razz: — 3017amen

:up: G'day!

Ok. Thanks.

Consciousness is "for itself" and finds how to be "for others" as well, in his search for growth. His nature in itself is what is called Heaven, Nirvana, Dao, and Ash ect., consciousness being such a modern word. It's unfathomable because it's outside social language. Do we get lost in matter or in non-physical realms when we stray from our nature. No one can penetrate into such a question

You might do well to consider the quality of your companions.

Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool

Is static electricity part of the car door?

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. — Wayfarer

Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy." :joke:

Quantum Physics inadvertently placed the Observer back into the empirical equation, which was originally intended to omit the subjective prejudices of ordinary humans, that always led to differences of opinion. Ironically, the Copenhagen Interpretation was similar to the Council of Nicaea, as a means to distinguish mere differences-of-opinion from blatant heresies.

In their quest for perfect objectivity in empirical science, humans have created non-sentient machines that do all of the empirical observing, except extracting meaningful information from the observed relationships. And I've never heard of one telescope arguing with another piece of technical equipment about the significance of the observation. Any philosophical differences in Science are always correlated with physical Bodies, but only those with metaphysical Minds.

Rovelli seems to imply that the post-enlightenment notion of the Objective Observer, was a case of humans pretending to view the world from God's "privileged" perspective outside of the universe. But Quantum Theory knocked the legs out from that presumption : a human observer is an integral part of the system being observed. That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd:

Relational quantum mechanics :
The proponents of the relational interpretation argue that this approach resolves some of the traditional interpretational difficulties with quantum mechanics. By giving up our preconception of a global privileged state, issues around the measurement problem and local realism are resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

Copenhagen interpretation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Council of Nicaea :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And just for funsies . . . . :

Physical Logic :
In R.D. Sorkin's framework for logic in physics a clear separation is made between the collection of unasserted propositions about the physical world and the affirmation or denial of these propositions by the physical world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6266

Logical implies a higher view than the physical. :wink:
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/logical-vs-physical

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile:

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case?

You might do well to consider the quality of your companions. — Banno

Why? Because...

Religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism — Sam Harris

Doesn't putting the pressure on religious moderates like 3017amen and others probably amount to terrorism?

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel) — Wikipedia

That's what I call the Green Goblin maneuver - hurting Mary Jane (Peter Parker's "better" half) to hurt Peter Parker (Spiderman). A :up: for strategy but A :down: for ethics.

That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd: — Gnomon

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else?

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon

It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make.

What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? — Gnomon

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make?

Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? — Gnomon

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things.

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this.

Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? — Gnomon

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism.

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case? — Gnomon

I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking, or what you think you are trying to prove.

a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical — Gnomon

Wittgenstein
1) In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he proposed that in order for a picture to represent a certain fact it must, in some way, possess the same logical structure as the fact.
2) Such that a picture of a square and the fact of a square are different in some ways but have the same logical structure.
3) As we cannot judge that the picture and the fact have the same logical structure without a prior knowledge of the concept of a square, and as the concept of a square requires both rationalism and empiricism, then a posteriori empiricism is inherent in any judgement about logical structure.
4) As physicalism is inherent in any knowledge about a posteriori empiricism, physicalism is inherent in the logic underpinning Wittgenstein's logical structure.

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic.

Quantum Logic
The idea that the principles of classical logic may be revised on empirical grounds has foundations in the works of Quine and Reichenbach.

Hilary Putnam in his 1968 Is Logic Empirical ? discussed the idea that the properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined. In particular, whether empirical facts about quantum phenomena may provide grounds for revising classical logic as a consistent logical rendering of reality. He argued that all the reasons usually given for the absolutely a priori status of classical logic applied equally well to the principles of classical Euclidean geometry.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical.

I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. — Janus

Technically, we can’t, because they aren’t there. Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already.

Classic transcendental illusion: reason informs us a priori that a triangle is and can only be a very particular enclosed space, then turns right around and informs us a posteriori of an unenclosed space which we immediately intuit as a triangle. I mean, even the three little black pointy configurations aren’t enclosed sufficiently to form a triangle.

Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle.

AARRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else? — Pop

He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation". :joke:

If you are asking about a fluid physical substrate for information to "wave" in, that is a question that puzzled the early pioneers of the wave nature of light energy. Some proposed that empty space contained an ethereal substance called "ether" or "aether". But, today most scientists evade that resemblance to a Spiritual substance by merely saying that light "behaves" like a wave, even though there may be no fluid substance to wave in. That also avoids having to reconcile its particle-like form, per Newton, with its wave-form, in two-slit experiments.

For my philosophical purposes though, I think that energy is not literally waving, but merely metaphorically. It's not a continuous analog wave, but a series of rapid digital quantum on/off (or actual/potential) winks that appear to the observer as a sine wave of ups & downs. For example, you could plot a Morse code signal in terms of a sine wave of maximum/minimum power instead of long/short duration. For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd:


Ether Theory :
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Discrete dots plotted as a continuous curve :

So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? :brow:

Gravity is not a force so a gravity wave is ripples in spacetime

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case? — Gnomon

That drives the point home very well.

I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking, or what you think you are trying to prove. — Janus

Neither triangle is an actual triangle. They both require an observer to give them the label "triangle", particularly the white triangle, since it isn't even made of line segments and is defined by its relation to the other objects.

This is a problem for materialists who believe in the possibility of simulated consciousness. If the existence of the white triangle is dependent on an observer, then simulated consciousness is also going to be dependent on an observer- flipping little electric switches on and off in a certain way isn't sufficient to simulate consciousness. You would need an observer to assign a meaningful label to whatever pattern of switching operations is (supposedly) conscious, just as we need an observer to interpret the relationships between the objects in the image Gnomon posted and determine the empty spaces form a white triangle. And what's true of switching operations is true of neural activity: without an observer to give meaning to what the neurons are doing, it's just meaningless arrangements of matter interacting and moving around. Obviously, there's no little observers in our brain, so the brain alone is not a sufficient condition for consciousness.

The brain is consciousness because you are a body. It is true we don't know exactly what a brain is and how much we construct reality, but neurology is the best science to understand the substance of consciousness. How could something "incorporeal" understand matter? If you set of consciousness as a realm above and beyond matter than you are denying the existence of the brain and dissociating somewhere else and calling this a realm beyond matter. How can anyone know what is beyond matter or that matter can't be conscious? Consciousness is the soul and it is dependent on neurons but it can read between the lines with images, poetry, and philosophy

For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd: — Gnomon

I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist.

Nikola Tesla said: "If you want to understand the universe look to frequency and vibration ". It is frequencies and vibrations that our senses are attuned to. From these perturbations we infer a world. What occurs is we integrate these perturbations in order to infer a world. The perturbations remain perturbations until they are integrated and stored as physical structure ( memorized ), as per neuroplasticity.

The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind?

The information is self organizing, due to the fine tuning of the universe. That is what we see at the most fundamental level ( assuming energy and information are fundamental ). One Wavicle interacts with another wavicle, their information modulates to a third wavicle - their information ( frequency and amplitude ) integrates and is memorized in the structure ( information ) of the third Wavicle. This is consciousness at the very beginning, and this fundamental self organizing dynamic, being fundamental, is the basis for everything subsequent to it - is present in everything subsequent to it. Hence we see something of the sort playing out in neuroplasticity.

My exact point (more or less).

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make. — Janus

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make? — Janus

In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.

Generic Information :
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking. — Janus

I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism. — Janus

It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum? :wink:

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic. — RussellA

Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical. — RussellA

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact. :smile:

Sure you need an observer to observe something.

Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already. — Mww

I'd say it is more the capacity for pattern recognition that makes us see the triangles than it is reason. I wonder how much of the boundary would need to be missing and how minimal the cues would need to be in order for us to fail to recognize the triangle shape?

Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle. — Mww

I think that's because there are not multiple points that define and locate a boundary.

↪Gnomon
So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? :brow: — 180 Proof

That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way. :grin:


Is space-time smooth or chunky? :
In order for the math of general relativity to work, this fabric of space-time has to be absolutely smooth at the tiniest of scales. No matter how far you zoom in, space-time will always be as wrinkle-free as a recently ironed shirt.
https://www.space.com/space-time-smooth-chunky-quantum-gravity.html
Is Spacetime quantized ? :
Today, while it is generally accepted that spacetime is quantized, there is disagreement as to how quantization manifests itself . ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318303447

That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? — Gnomon

Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns.

Sure you need an observer to observe something. — Janus

Would you agree that an observer is a necessary condition for the existence of the white triangle? That is to say, in a universe where there are no minds, there are no "white triangles"?

If there were no observers there would be no observations of white triangles; that seems obvious and I see no reason to assert any more than that.

I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist. — Pop

You're aware that the notion of a field is an imaginary mathematical construct, right? It's used like a matrix to organize abstractions into something resembling concrete reality. The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing.

Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium? :chin:

If the quantum field is not composed of "particles", what is the field made of?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind? — Pop

In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile:

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". — Gnomon

I don't agree that mind consists of any "stuff" I see mind as an activity of the living human body, just as running, walking, sitting, digestion and so on, are. Those activities do not consist of any "stuff", and I think likewise of mind.

And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years. — Gnomon

Yes, and on account of that it's well past its 'use by' date.

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales. — Gnomon

Scientists having something to say is not the same as science having something to say on the matter.

My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. — Gnomon

If no unequivocal empirical evidence for your belief system or it is not logically necessary, then it is a matter of faith if you actually believe in it, or it may be a matter of conjecture if you merely hold it provisionally. On the other hand if a conjecture, or hypothesis is not susceptible of empirical verification /falsification, even in principle, as is the case with metaphysical speculations, then it is either a matter of faith or else simply something you entertain for amusement or poetic purposes.