it means 'irreducible' — Wayfarer
That is exactly what energy is: an irreducible simple. We only have access to it by way of information — Pop
I imagine your frustration is in part that an idealistic paradigm is being forced upon you? — Pop
But you have to set up a framework within which it can be spoken of meaningfully, which is what I guess I'm attempting. — Wayfarer
The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth. — Pop
Consciousness — Gnomon
Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself, — PoeticUniverse
Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly, — PoeticUniverse
Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be". :cool:Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).I thought metaphysics was the science of the conditions of possibility of ‘what can be’. As such it includes within itself things and concepts. — Joshs
So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be — Gnomon
I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.I am more familiar with Kant than with Plato. Would you agree that for Kant the the physical exists but is unknowable in itself , the mental exists in itself but is empty without sensations from the world ('concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind‘). So Kant’s metaphysics shows us that the physical is an ideal , not an actuality. It is an ideal in a different sense than the mathematical concept of zero, yet still an ideal. Therefore his metaphysics is showing us that ‘what is’ ( both as fantasized concept and as physical ) is the product of an indissociable interaction between external reality in itself and subjective mental process. — Joshs
↪Pop
It was just an idea, that i had. Thinking about water that can store "information", why not have another substance that can do the same thing ? — Adughep
Thus, the percept and the real thing were completely separable. The latter would exist without the former, but the former would not exist without the latter. None of this makes a great deal of sense to me, and I am not alone in this — Neri
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.